j;:::^- 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  <J> 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Agnnv  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 


SDSY 


'i^ilbi.. 


'^'' 


PETER  EDWARDS'S 

CANDID  REASONS 

EXAMINED, 
AND  ANSWERED. 


BY  DAVID  *iONES,  A.  M. 

Pastor  of  the  Baptist  Church,  at  the  Great  Valley,  Chester  County. 


lor  the  leaders  of  this  people  cause  them  to  err.  Is  A  l  am. 

TuU  well  ye  reject  the  commandment  of  God,  that  ye  may  keep 
voxvc  own  tradition.  Mahk, 


PHILADELPHIA; 

^'rinted  for  the  Author  by  Dennis  Ileartt 
I81I, 


jAf^gg^ 


<^v^^0 .. 


".t 


PREFACE. 


All  clu'istians  profess  to  i*eceive  the  holy 
scriptures  as  a  dii'ectorj  in  faith  and  prac- 
tice, and  to  believe  that  the  mind  of  God  is 
plainly  revealed;  or  otherwise,  there  is  no 
revelation  at  aU;  for  if  our  duty  to  God,  and 
obedience  to  Christ,  is  not  plainly  expressed, 
but  left  to  analogy  and  inference,  then  all  is 
left  to  the  ingenuity  or  imagination  of  man, 
which  varies  according  to  education  and  inte- 
rest, or  erroneous  principles  embraced. 

To  me  the  subjects  and  modes  of  baptism, 
are  as  plain  as  language  or  example  can  make 
them;  yet  for  more  than  one  hundi^ed  years 
volumes  have  been  written  on  this  subject; 
and  yet  the  dispute  continues.  I  never  either 
wished  or  expected  to  appear  in  public  on 
this  subject;  but  some  years  ago  a  pamphlet 
was  reprinted  in  America  written  by  Peter 
Edwards  in  England,  and  spread  with  un- 
common zeal,  as  if  it  was  unanswerable.  I 
was  frequently  asked,  if  I  had  read  it.  My 
answer  was  no:  I  neither  wished  to  read  it  nor 
any  other  on  the  subject;  for  I  had  the  scrip- 


IV 

tui*es,  which  pointed  out  our  duty  so  plainly, 
that  I  had  not  one  doubt  on  the  subject.  At 
last  a  friend  put  it  into  my  hand;  and  I  read 
it  over  several  times,  and  told  my  friend,  I 
found  nothing  unanswerable  in  the  pamphlet. 
The  author  seemed  very  abusive  and  spite- 
ful; but  he  had  said  nothing  but  the  old  story 
dressed  up  in  a  new  form,  in  which  he  had 
used  more  sophistry  than  common.  My 
friend  declined  answering  it,  as  his  duty  in 
his  present  station  would  not  afford  time  to 
be  consumed  that  way.  He  urged  me  to 
undertake  an  answer,  with  which  I  reluc- 
tantly complied.  And  after  some  progress^ 
I  was  afflicted  with  the  loss  of  my  wife, 
which  affected  me  so,  that  nothing  was  done 
on  the  subject  for  a  long  time;  and  I  believe 
I  should  have  dropped  the  work,  only,  in  my 
travels,  I  often  heard  Peter  Edwards  repre- 
sented as  unequalled  and  unanswerable.  I 
Iiave  now  concluded  my  work  and  offer  it  to 
the  public  for  their  consideration. 

My  plan  is  altogether  new;  and  it  is  my 
own.  If  I  am  wrong,  no  blame  is  to  be  at- 
tached to  my  society;  for  I  know  not  whether 
I  shall  meet  their  universal  approbation.  I 
have  denied  that  the  Jews,  consisting  of  men, 
women  and  children,  were  ever  called  a 
church.  1  have  denied  that  the  Greek  word 
EjtJtAvja-ifit,  which  means  the  out-called,  or  such 
as  are  called  by  grace,  can  possibly  be  appli- 
ed to  a  nation  or  kingdom.  I  can  iind  no  ap- 


plication  of  the  word  to  that  purpose.  I  find 
the  word  used  hy  heathens  for  assemblies, 
called  together  by  a  crier,  resembling  our 
courts;  but  it  always  meant  a  voluntary  as- 
sembly. No  doubt  the  Hebrews  have  a  word 
or  words  for  an  assembly;  but  nothing  exist- 
ed among  them  like  a  gospel  church:  the 
meaning  of  the  word  must  be  fixed  in  the 
New  Testament.  And  to  the  eternal  honourof 
George  Campbell  of  Aberdeen,  D.  D.  he  has 
unanswerably  fixed  the  meaning  of  the  word, 
in  his  short  Ecclesiastical  History. 

Peter  Edwards's  great  strength  lies  in 
two  propositions,  viz.  1.  That  infants  were 
once  the  members  of  the  church.  2.  That 
their  membership  was  never  excluded  by  any 
law  either  of  God  or  man,  ^c. 

From  what  I  have  said,  it  will  appear  that 
all  that  can  be  said  about  membership,  is 
only  hollow  talk;  for  the  word  membership 
or  member  is  not  found  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, nor  any  thing  like  it.  The  male  chil- 
dren were  circumcised  by  the  command  of 
God,  as  a  token  of  the  covenant  made  with 
Abraham  about  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  was 
a  national  mark  of  distinction  till  the  Mes- 
siah should  come;  but  none  thereby  were 
entered  into  any  church;  for  no  such  thing 
did  then  exist,  nor  could  formally  exist. 

I  have  carefully  searched  every  passage 
in  Genesis,  to  learn  when  and  where  any 
such  thing  was  formed;  but  found  no  traces 


VI 


of  it  ill  scripture.  I  found  it  existed  only  in 
Judaizers'  brains,  fabricated  to  support  a  su- 
perstition, wbich  can  receive  no  aid  from 
scripture,  utility  or  common  sense. 

I  know  my  theory  is  as  new  in  religion  as 
.sir  Isaac  Newton's  was  in  philosophy;  and  1 
flatter  myself  that  m}^  sentiments  will  gain 
ground  daily,  with  all  who  are  in  searcli  of 
truth.  And  should  any  person  be  disposed  to 
oppose  my  system,  I  am  ready  on  all  occa- 
sions to  vindicate  it.  I  have  seen  proper  to 
change  the  expressions  formerly  used  on 
the  subject;  instead  of  psedobaptist  I  use  the 
phrase  psedorantist,  without  any  intention  to 
give  ofience  to  my  brethren,  who  differ  in 
opinion  from  me;  nor  is  there  any  cause  of 
offence;  for  the  word  used  by  me  is  the  truth 
and  nothing  but  the  truth;  the  word  Rantize, 
signifying  to  sprinkle. 

Several  publications  have  appeared  in 
America  and  Ena^land  a2;ainst  Peter  Ed- 
wards;  but  mine  will  interfere  with  none  of 
them;  as  my  plan  is  altogether  new. 

An  answer  to  my  publication  must  be 
made  on  new  ground,  as  the  old  fort  is  erased 
to  the  ground. 

I  have  more  Grreek  than  what  was  com- 
mon on  the  subject.  This  was  sometimes 
occasioned  by  our  author  so  frequently  using 
that  language,  as  if  other  people  were  ignor- 
ant on  the  subject;  and  in  some  places  it 
was  necessary  to  expose  his  abuse   of  the 


vu 

language,  designed  to  bovilder  or  mislead 
the  unlearned. 

On  the  mode  of  baptism,  I  have  corrected 
Peter  Edwards's  abuse  of  the  Greek  so  plainly 
and  fuHy,  that  none  will  be  under  the  temp- 
tation to  follow  him  any  more.  The  cause  of 
Christ  is  t^  be  maintained  by  simple  honesty, 
and  not  by  Jesuitical  cunning,  evasions  and 
sophisms.  And  wliat  can  be  a  greater  evasion 
than  never  to  fix  on  the  meaning  of  (^aTrnt^u^ 
but  instead  of  that  to  say,  without  proof,  it 
means,  to  wash,  pour,  or  sprinkle? 

Perhaps  some  of  my  brethern  may  blame 
me  for  some  severity  of  language  used.  I 
shall  make  no  other  apology  than,  Let  them 
read  Peter  Edwards;  and  they  will  see  it 
was  next  to  impossible  to  avoid  it  altogether; 
for  he  so  often  lost  truth  and  modesty,  that 
a  corrective  became  necessary  to  him,  but  I 
hope  to  no  other  man.  As  truth  was  my  ob- 
ject, I  have  used  very  plain  language,  as  best 
suited  for  the  most  of  readers.  I  am  willing 
to  submit  this  publication  to  him,  who  said, 
'•  What  I  tell  you  in  darkness,  that  speak  ye 
in  light;  and  what  ye  hear  in  the  ear,  that 
speak  ye  on  the  house-tops."  Matt.  x.  27. 
To  his  blessing,  I  commit  this  pamplilet, 
and  remain  an  aged  servant  of  the  church  of 
Christ. 

DAVID  J0NE8. 

March  4,  1811, 


"Vf?^ 


CANDID  REASONS 
EXAMINED  AND  ANSWERED. 


It  was  never  my  wish  to  write  on  the  subject 
of  Baptism,  as  it  always  appeared  to  me  very  plain 
in  the  New  Testament;  but  as  Jude  exhorts  to 
contend  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints,  I  thought  it  my  duty  to  comply.  I  conclude 
that  all,  we  should  believe  or  do,  is  so  plainly 
contained  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  that  we  can 
understand  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  as  far  as 
affects  our  salvation,  without  recurrence  to  the  sub- 
tilties  of  Aristotle,  or  the  quibbles  of  logical  syl- 
logisms. As  the  greater  part  of  christians  are 
unacquainted  with  the  science  of  logic,  we  must 
suppose  that  the  Great  Head  of  the  church  deli- 
vered his  mind  so  plainly  to  his  apostles  that  they 
could  not  misunderstand  him,  especially  when  we 
remember,  that  they^  were  infallibly  inspired  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  in  writing  the  New  Testament.  There- 
fore we  may  safely  believe,  that  they  obeyed  the 
solemn  injunction  of  their  Lord,  to  teach  the  dis- 
ciples to  observe   all   things,    whatsoever  he  had 


■■2  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

commanded  them.  Therefore,  when  we  find  any 
person  using  vain  and  perplexing  disputations,  and 
handling  the  word  of  God  deceitfully,  we  may  con- 
clude that  truth  is  not  the  object  in  view;  but,  first 
having  embraced  an  error,  this  method  is  used  to 
baffle  antagonists,  and  mislead  uninformed  persons, 
who  are  not  aware  of  such  sophisms. 

I  have  read  many  pamphlets  on  the  subject  of 
baptism;  but  I  never  met  with  any,  who  has  so 
abused  the  scriptures  as  Peter  Edwards,  in  his 
pamphlet  called  Candid  Reasons.  There  is  so  little 
candor  in  it,  and  so  much  abuse,  that  it  is  scarcely 
possible  to  read  it  without  a  disagreeable  impression 
on  the  mind;  but  as  scurrility  and  abuse  have  no 
argument  in  them,  I  wish  to  avoid  them  as  far  as 
possible,  and  consider  the  subject  in  a  christian 
temper.  I  purpose  chiefly  to  confine  myself  to 
scripture  language,  and  arguments  deduced  from 
it.  I  shall  be  under  the  necessity  to  make  use  of 
some  other  writings.  I  will  allow  Peter  Edwards,  or 
any  other  person,  to  use  analogy  and  inference;  but, 
at  tlie  same  time,  I  must  assert  that  both  may  be 
greatly  abused,  and  used  to  support  a  bad  cause, 
by  giving  the  appearance  of  truth,  when  at  the  same 
time  it  is  only  a  gilded  falsehood. 

In  my  remarks  on  Peter  Edwards,  I  do  not  in- 
tend to  travel  page  for  page;  for  this  would  swell 
my  pamphlet  to  the  size  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  render  it  too  costly  for  the  household  of  faith, 
xvho  <ire   in  poor   circumstances.  I  shall  therefore 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  3 

consider,  what  he  deems  his  principal  arguments,  and 
by  refuting  them,  the  rest  will  fall  of  course. 

Some  phrases,  used  by  both  sides,  I  shall  omit; 
because  it  is  an  abuse  of  language,  and  the  baptists 
have  used  them  by  condescension,  or  inatt^tion. 
Such  are  the  terms  paedobaptism,  and  paedobaptist&. 
Instead  of  these,  I  shall  use  psedorantism,  &c.  If  I 
was  writing  against  the  Greek  communion,  I  would 
use  paedobaptism;  then  the  word  would  be  used 
with  propriety,  for  it  is  well  known  when  they 
baptize  their  children,  they  dip  them  not  only  once, 
but  three  times,  which  was  the  custom  in  most 
churches  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  as  is  well 
known  by  all  who  are  acquainted  with  the  history 
of  those  times.  Very  few  either  in  England  or 
America  dip  their  children  in  baptism;  therefore 
there  are  no  paedobaptists  with  us:  they  are  psedo- 
rantists.  There  is  the  greatest  propriety  in  the  term 
which  I  shall  use  in  this  pamphlet;  nor  can  it  justly 
give  any  offence  to  my  brethren,  who  differ  from 
me  on  this  subject;  for  I  can  assure  them  it  is  not 
done  out  of  any  disrespect;  for  many  of  them  are 
highly  esteemed  by  me  for  their  piety  and  christian 
deportment.  I  look  on  them  as  brethren  under  a 
mistake  on  the  subject  of  baptism;  and,  I  am  not 
without  hopes,  they  may  yet  see  their  mistake,  and 
drop  their  old  traditions  to  follow  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ  more  perfectly.  I  have  travel- 
led through  Virginia  and  Kentucky;  and  in  these 
states  I   have   been  admitted  as  freely  into   their 


4  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

pulpits,  as  if  I  belonged  to  their  society.  Bigotry  is 
on  the  decline,  yet  there  is  too  much  of  it  remain- 
ing; for  in  some  places  in  Pennsylvania,  where 
priestcraft  too  much  prevails,  I  have  not  been  ad- 
mitted. Wherever  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  is 
become  a  trade,  the  ministers  are  afraid  of  losing 
sheep.  The  citizens  of  the  United  States  have  been 
much  enlightened  respecting  the  rights  of  man, 
since  the  revolution;  and  why  may  we  not  hope  to 
see  an  impartial  inquiry  into  spiritual  things?  I  ac- 
knowledge that  every  branch  of  antichrist  must  be 
consumed  by  the  Spirit  of  God;  and  when  the 
happy  time  comes,  there  will  be  no  dispute  about 
the  subjects  of  baptism,  nor  the  mode  of  it.  While 
matters  are  as  they  are,  we  should  learn  moderation 
towards  them,  who  are  not  of  our  opinion;  but  this 
should  not  relax  our  search  after  truth:  for  every 
part  of  truth  should  be  highly  esteemed  by  us;  but 
it  should  never  be  carried  so  far  as  to  have  a  spite- 
ful hatred  to  them  that  dissent  from  us. 

The  method  that  I  purpose  to  use,  in  considering 
this  subject,  is  the  following. 

1.  I  will  consider  what  is  meant  by  Church  under 
the  gospel  dispensation;  for  under  the  Jewish  econo- 
my, the  word  could  not  be  properly  used,  as  the 
Jews  were  never  called  a  church. 

2.  I  shall  examine  the  meaning  of  the  word  Bap- 
tism. 

3. 'Draw  some  inferences  from  the  subjects  thus 
considered. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  5 

My  plan  is  new,  and  it  is  my  own:  if  it  fails 
the  blame  must  be  cast  on  me,  and  not  on  my 
society;  but  I  am  as  fully  satisfied  that  I  am  right 
as  I  am  that  there  is  a  sun  in  the  firmament;  and 
the  more  I  think  on  it,  I  am  the  more  astonished, 
why  it  has  not  been  embraced,  especially  by  all 
baptists.  In  prosecuting  the  subject,  perhaps  I 
will  use  inference  and  analogy;  for  I  never  knew  a 
baptist  to  deny  the  proper  use  of  them;  neverthe- 
less, they  are  not  the  best  methods  to  come  to  the 
knowledge  of  our  duty:  it  is  much  better  to  have 
Thus  saith  the  Lord,  or  a  plain  example  in  all  our 
religious  obedience.  If  our  duty  is  not  plainly  re- 
vealed in  the  New  Testament,  but  left  to  inference, 
then  the  gospel  dispensation  is  more  defective  than 
the  Jewish  economy.  The  scripture  says,  '*  Moses 
was  faithful  in  his  house;"  but  Christ  was  not  faith- 
ful in  his  house  according  to  this  sentiment.  Should 
we  examine  this  subject,  and  neglect  precept  or 
example,  but  have  recourse  to  inference  to  find  our 
duty,  we  shall  cast  a  severe  reflection  on  Christ, 
who  left  things  respecting  our  duty  so  dark,  that 
none  can  understand  them  without  the  assistance 
of  analogy  and  logical  infiercnce.  What  says  Paul 
on  the  subject?  "  Moses  was  verily  faithful  as  a 
servant,  over  his  house;  but  Christ  as  a  son  over 
his  own  house,  whose  house  are  we."  Heb.  iii.  5,  6. 
The  truth  from  this  passage  is,  that  the  Jewish 
nation  was  Moses's  house;  and  he  was  as  a  servant 
faithful  to  God,  in  delivering  the  whole  mind  of 


6  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

God  plainly,  without  any  thing  to  be  made  out  by 
inference  or  logical  reasoning.  God  would  not  trust 
his  cause  to  the  reasoning  of  Moses,  who  emphati- 
cally is  called  the  servant  of  God;  he  therefore  said, 
"  Look  that  thou  make  them,  after  the  pattern  which 
was  showed  thee  in  the  mount."  Ex.  xxv.  40.  Moses 
delivered  the  whole  will  of  God  as  a  servant,  and 
shall  we  not  conclude  that  Christ  as  son  was  as 
faithful  in  his  house  by  delivering  all  that  the  father 
had  commanded  him?  What  says  Christ  on  this 
subject?  "  I  have  given  unto  them  the  words  which 
thou  gavest  me;  and  they  have  received  them." 
John  xvii.  8.  It  cannot  be  doubted  but  every  part  of 
duty  was  plainly  revealed  by  Christ,  and  nothing 
left  to  the  apostles'  inferences.  Paul  said,  "  He  had 
not  shunned  to  declare  all  the  counsel  of  God."  Acts 
20.  XX. 

Several  passages  of  scripture  will  demonstrate 
that  inference  is  uncertain,  and  not  to  be  depended 
on.  I  shall  select  a  few  out  of  many.  I  will  begin 
early,  even  as  early  as  our  old  mother,  who  drew  a 
false  inference  respecting  the  forbidden  fruit.  There 
was  no  doubt  about  the  command  of  God,  that  she 
should  not  eat  of  tlie  tree  that  was  in  the  midst  of 
the  garden;  but  the  doctrine  of  inference  takes  place 
and  makes  void  the  command  of  God.  We  will 
transcribe  the  passage.  "  And  when  the  woman  saw 
that  the  tree  was  good  for  food,  and  that  it  was 
pleasant  to  the  eyes,  and  a  tree  to  be  desired  to  make 
one  wise,  she  took  of  the  fruit  thereof  and  did  eat." 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  7 

Gen.  iii.  6.  We  feel  the  effects  of  her  wrong  m- 
ference  to  this  very  day.  It  is  never  good  to  draw 
any  inference  contrary  to  the  positive  command  of 
God.  Again,  when  an  angel  appeared  to  Manoah 
and  his  wife,  and  disappeared  when  he  offered  a  kid. 
Manoah  inferred  that  they  should  surely  die.  Here 
Manoah's  inference  was  wrong;  but  his  wife  drew 
a  contrary  inference,  and  she  was  right.  Judges  iii. 
22.  The  apostles  drew  a  wrong  inference  respecting 
John,  from  Christ's  saying,  "  If  I  will  that  he  tarry 
till  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee?"  John  xxi.  22. 
The  disciples  inferred  that  John  should  not  die. 
The  doctrine  of  tran substantiation  is  by  inference. 
How  often  are  contrary  inferences  drawn  from  the 
same  text?  This  will  be  exemplified  in  this  pamphlet, 
as  my  inference  will  be  opposite  to  Peter  Edwaixls's. 
Peter  Edwards  has  ^vritten  more  than  one  hundred 
and  twenty- seven  pages  to  prove  that  infants  were 
fit  subjects  for  baptism.  In  page-  thirty-one,  he  first 
used  the  word  Church;  and  from  that  to  page  one 
hundred  and  twenty- eight,  he  uses  the  word,  if  I  am 
correct,  two  hundred  and  eighteen  times.  Should 
the  word  Church  and  membership  be  taken  out  of 
his  pamphlet,  it  would  be  reduced  to  a  much  smal- 
ler size.  Observing  the  word  Church  so  often  used, 
I  resolved  to  begin  by  explaining  the  word  Church 
under  the  gospel  dispensation,  the  only  proper  place 
to  find  the  true  meaning  of  it;  for  notwithstanding  it 
is  used  in  the  Septuagint,  we  cannot  suppose  they  had 
the  same  idea  of  it  as  under  the  gospel:  as  no  such  body 
did  exist  under  the  Jewish  economy.  Should  I  make 


y  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

it  appear  that  the  Jews,  as  a  nation,  never  were  called 
a  church,  then  Peter  Edwards's  arguments,  to  use 
his  own  phrase,  will  go  to  perdition;  for  he  supported 
his  cause  by  bold  assertions,  and  new  sophisms.  He 
took  a  wrong  road  in  setting  out;  for  first  he  ought  to 
have  proved  that  the  Jewish  nation  were  called  a 
church;  but  Peter  Edwards  takes  for  granted  what 
I  ^vill  not  grant  to  any  man.  I  am  determined  to 
contend  eaniestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints,  and  receive  nothing  without  plain  proof  from 
the  holy  scriptures.  If  Peter  Edwards,  or  any  other 
man,  can  show  me,  that  children  are,  or  were  mem- 
bers of  any  thing  properly  called  a  church  of  Christ, 
I  ^vill  acknowledge  that  something  is  done  which 
never  has  yet  been  done,  and  I  believe  never  can  be 
done.  This  subject  shall  be  further  considered  in 
this  pamphlet.  I  will  therefore  prosecute  the  plan 
proposed,  which  was  to  make  appear  what  is  the 
meaning  of  the  word  Church  under  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation; and  to  do  justice  to  the  subject  I  must 
consider  the  meaning  of  the  w^ord  in  the  Greek 
language. 

The  W'Ord  rendered  Church  in  English  is  tKuhtjcrioiy 
in  Greek.  This  word  is  a  compound  of  the  Greek 
preposition  £>t,  that  is  out  of,  and  Kothio^  that  is  to 
call.  The  word  Eicy.AncKX.  means  the  out  called,  I 
know  of  no  word  in  the  English,  which  comprehends 
fully  the  meaning  in  the  original.  In  the  Latin  lan- 
guage, the  word  Evocatio  is  nearly  the  true  meaning. 
This  word  is  a  compound  of  ^  and  voco,to  cally  sothat 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  $ 

it  means  that  which  is  called  out.  This  is  exactly 
the  meaning  of  the  word  E>t>tA>)(r«»  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. 

I  wish  no  person  to  take  my  say  so,  for  proof; 
let  us  therefore  consult  lexicons  and  see  what  they 
say  on  the  subject;  to  which  I  will  add  the  defi- 
nitions of  learned  gentlemen;  and  if  their  judgments 
and  mine  agree,  it  must  be  granted  as  a  strong 
argument  in  my  favour.  I  have  consulted  several 
lexicons;  and  they  all  agree  on  the  subject.  I  have 
only  two  present,  viz.  Schre villus  and  Parkhurst. 
Sclirevilius  renders  the  word  in  the  Latin  Concio 
and  Ccetus:  that  is,  an  assembly,  a  meeting,  a  multi- 
tude,  a  flock.  He  says  the  word  is  derived  from 
EjcjcosAso,  in  Latin  evoco,  which  means  to  call  out. 
Parkhurst  says  the  word  E>c)tA}j(n*  is  derived  from 
EKJCfltAgjv,  to  call  out;  he  further  adds  that  it  means  in 
the  New  Testament  a  church  of  God,  that  is  an 
assembly  or  society  of  men,  called  out  of  mankind 
by  the  word  of  God.  He  says  also  it  means  a  parti- 
cular or  single  congregation  of  christians.  He  then 
refers  to  many  passages  in  the  New  Testament, 
where  it  is  so  used. 

Cruden,  in  his  Concordance  on  the  word  Church, 
says  it  means  "  a  religious  assembly,  selected  and 
called  out  of  the  world,  by  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel, 
to  worship  the  true  God  in  Christ  according  to  his 
word;"  and  he  adds,  "  all  the  elect  of  God,  of  what 
nation  soever,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the 

c 


10  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

world,  which  make  but  one  body,  whereof  Christ 
is  the  head." 

Locke,  on  Toleration,  defines  a  church  thus,  viz. 
"  A  church  then  I  take  to  be  a  voluntary  society  of 
men,  joining  themselves  together  of  their  own  ac- 
cord, in  order  to  the  public  worshipping  of  God, 
in  such  a  manner,  as  they  judge  acceptable  to  him 
and  effectual  to  the  salvation  of  their  souls.  I  say 
it  is  a  free  and  voluntary  society."* 

Doctor  Owens  defines  a  church  thus,  viz.  "  The 
church  is  a  voluntary  society."  He  then  illustrates 
it  by  saying,  "  Persons  otherwise  absolutely  free,  as 
unto  all  the  rules,  laws  and  ends  of  such  a  society, 
do  of  their  own  wills  and  free  choice  coalesce  into 
it.     This  is  the  origin  of  all  churches." 

I  have  seen  a  publication  under  the  name  of  a 
Christian  Magazine,  written  by  Mr.  Mason  of  New 
York:  he  pretends  to  find  Hebrew  words  of  the 
same  meaning  with  the  Greek  word  EKxhyjirioe>  in  the 
New  Testament.  Should  any  person  examine  the 
texts  to  which  he  refers,  it  will  apj^ear  that  the  simi- 
larit}-  between  the  Hebrew  words  Cahal  and 
gheda  and  Ex.)cA€<rj«,  existed  in  his  own  brains,  and 
not  in  matters  of  fact.  However  bis  definition  of 
the  word  'EKKhy^a-ioi  is  just,  as  far  as  it  goes.  He  says, 
it  means  "  an  assembly,  especially  one  convened  by 
invitation  or  appointment."!  This  definition  retains 

*  Locke   on   Toleration,  page   l7.     Owen,  on  h  Gospel    Church, 
page  74. 

f  (/bristian  Magazine,  pag'e  55. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  H 

the  meaning  of  the  word  sxKoiAgo.  I  shall  now  give 
the  definition  of  a  chiu-ch  according  to  the  notion  of 
Peter  Edwards,  And  as  he  is  a  singular  genius, 
his  definition  is  like  no  other  man's,  viz.  "  A  church 
is  a  society  that  stands  in  special  relation  to  God, 
being  instituted  for  religious  purposes."  I  have 
met  with  none,  who  agree  with  Peter;  for  he  has 
left  out  the  etymology  of  the  word.  If  he  understands 
the  Greek  language,  he  must  have  plainly  seen,  that 
nothing  in  that  language  would  favour  his  design: 
he  therefore  gives  a  definition  singular  from  every 
other  man;  and  his  design  was  to  quibble  on  the 
subject,  that,  finally,  baby  membership  might  be  in- 
troduced. 

I  shall  now  give  my  definition  of  the  word 
Church,  viz.  A  particular  church,  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, means,  a  voluntary  assembly  or  society  of 
persons  called  by  grace  out  of  a  state  of  nature  into 
a  state  of  grace,  and  voluntarily  formed  into  a  reli- 
gious body,  in  order  to  maintain  the  worship  of  God, 
and  promote  their  own  sanctification.  The  word  is 
not  always  confined  to  a  religious  assembly;  but  it 
always  means  in  the  New  Testament  a  voluntary 
assembly. 

The  term  is  in  Acts  xix.  32,  39,  41.  and  as  it  did 
not  mean  a  church  of  Christ,  it  is  rendered  assem- 
bly, but  meant  a  voluntary  one.  I  shall  take  at  pre- 
sent no  further  notice  of  what  Mr.  Mason  has  said 
on  the  subject  from  the  Hebrew  Cahal  and  gheda^ 
only  if  the  gentleman  had  never  heard  of  John  Cal- 


12  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

vin,  we  should  have  never  heard  of  John  Mason's 
definition.  Let  this  gentleman  refute  that  great  and 
worthy  man,  Dr.  Campbell  of  Aberdeen;  and  we  will 
give  more  attention  to  the  display  of  his  erudition. 
Notwithstanding  his  good  opinion  of  his  explanation, 
perhaps  men,  of  as  good  sense  and  as  good  learning 
as  himself,  will  be  of  opinion  that  the  very  texts 
which  he  quotes  are  far  from  a  decisive  proof  on  the 
subject.  As  for  my  own  part,  I  profess  I  can  find 
neither  argument,  nor  scripture,  to  authorize  any 
man  to  call  the  Jews  a  church.  They  are  often  call- 
ed the  congregation  of  the  Lord;  and  the  Septuagint 
in  some  places  have  used  Ex.x,A>j(r/at,  but  more  com- 
monly l.vvxyw'yy;^  which  properly  signifies  a  con- 
gregation; but  certainly  the  Greek  preposition  iw 
and  iK  are  of  a  contrary  meaning  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage. The  Jews  never  called  themselves  a  church. 
The  word  cannot  without  violence  be  applied  to  a 
nation;  for  hitherto  there  has  been  no  nation  of  saints; 
and  whoever  will  read  the  scriptures  will  find  that 
the  Jews,  as  a  body,  had  no  claim  to  the  term. 

In  short  calling  the  Jews  a  church,  consisting  of 
men,  women  and  children,  cannot  be  supported  by 
scripture  nor  common  sense;  for  a  church  is  a  volun- 
tary society;  and  if  we  consider  the, use  of  the  word 
in  the  New  Testament,  we  cannot  mi^s  the  mean- 
ing, if  we  are  not  under  the  influence  of  the  wine  of 
the  whore  of  Babylon. 

The  word  is  used  only  by  one  Evangelist,  and  in 
that  only  twice.   Matt.  xvi.  17,  .18.    Our  Lord  said 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  13 

to  Peter,  "  On  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church, 
and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  In 
this  place  Christ  means  all  that  shall  be  called  by 
grace  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Sometimes  it  means 
the  elect  of  God,  of  which  Chri&t  is  the  head,  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world  to  the  end  of  it.  Eph.  i, 
22.  The  next  place  where  it  is  used  is  Matt,  xviii. 
17,  where  it  is  said,  "  tell  it  to  the  church."  It  is 
very  plain  tiiat  Clirist  meant  b}^  church,  what  is  cal- 
led a  particular  church.  Nothing  but  blindness 
through  tradition  could  induce  any  man  to  apply 
this  passage  to  the  rulers  of  the  church.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  body  of  the  church  judged  their 
brethern  till  the  latter  end  of  the  second  century;  but 
when  pride  and  ambition  began  to  prevail,  the  rulers 
wrenched  the  power  from  the  body  of  the  people, 
and  arrogantly  took  it  into  their  own  hands.  Mo- 
sheim  is  candid  on  this  subject,  and  deserves  some 
credit,  seeing  he  wrote  contrary  to  his  own  con- 
duct.* 

By  this  passage,  it  is  evident  that  children  were 
no  part  of  that  body,  which  is  called  a  church;  for 
children,  who  know  not  their  right  hand  from  their 
left,  have  no  qualifications  to  judge  of  the  conduct 
of  their  brethren.  This  church  should  remain  a  mo- 
del for  the  churches  of  Christ  in  all  ages,  and  would 
have  remained  so,  had  not  avarice,  pride  and  ambi- 
tion eclipsed  the  glory  and  simplicity  of  the  churches. 

*  Mosheim,  vol.  i.  page  98. 


14  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

Such  churches  as  these,  are  the  ground  and  pillar  of 
the  truth,  and  not  a  composition  of  men  and  babies. 
The  next  passage  where  tlie  word  is  used  is  in  Acts 
ii.  47.  "  And  the  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily 
such  as  should  be  saved."  This  was  the  first  church 
that  ever  was  formed  on  earth;  and  if  we  understood 
the  nature  of  this,  we  would  understand  the  meaning 
of  the  word  EKKAy]<rix  thi'oughout  the  New  Testament; 
but  as  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  church 
of  Christ  to  support  the  pride,  avarice  and  ambition 
of  men,  they  prostitute  their  learning  and  acquire- 
ments  to  find  out  a  meaning  for  the  word  Church, 
which  was  never  intended  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
scripture  must  be  twisted  and  tormented  to  support 
the  superstitions  and  traditions  of  men:  it  is  made 
like  a  nose  of  wax,  capable  of  sitting  to  any  side. 
After  all,  we  shall  find  die  text  under  consideration 
pretty  plain,  and  so  obstinate,  that  it  will  not  bend 
to  the  whim  or  interest  of  e\^er}^  one.  We  learn  from 
the  passage  that  the  word  iKzAi^a-ia  means  something 
distinct  and  different  from  any  thing  that  was  ever 
known  among  the  Jews.  This  will  appear,  if  we  con- 
sider from  ^vhence  this  addition  was  made.  It  was 
made  from  the  Jews  and  perhaps  proselytes.  It  is 
plain  that  those,  who  were  added  to  the  church,  were 
out  of  it  previous  to  their  addition.  Had  the  Je^^s 
been  in  a  church  state,  they  must  have  been  in  the 
church  before  the  day  of  Pentecost;  but  it  is  plain 
they  were  not:  no,  they  were  never  deemed  a  church 
by  either  God  or  man.  The  church  was  something- 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  15 

altogether  new:  new  materials  and  a  new  form.  New 
wine  must  be  put  into  new  bottles;  for  notwithstand- 
mg  God  had  on  earth  the  materials  of  a  church,  be- 
fore the  flood,  and  after  it,  yet  there  was  none  for- 
mally, nor  could  there  be,  under  that  economy.  From 
this  passage,  it  is  evident,  that  a  gospel  church  was 
made  of  persons  called  out  from  the  Jewish  nation 
and  voluntarily  formed  into  a  religious  society  for 
the  worship  of  God,  and  to  spread  the  gospel  among 
all  nations;  and  such  materials  were  the  pillar  and 
ground  of  the  truth.  It  is  very  plain  this  text  can- 
not include  infants. 

I  w411  now  consider  Acts  viii.  3.  Here  it  is  said 
Saul  made  havock  of  the  church,  entering  into  every 
house,  and  haling  men  and  women,  committed 
them  to  prison! 

Here  the  church  consisted  of  men  and  women, 
not  one  word  said  about  children  being  any  part  of 
the  church.  In  the  first  verse,  it  is  said,  there  was  a 
great  persecution  against  the  church  which  was  at 
Jerusalem.  This  must  mean  against  the  disciples  of 
Christ,  who  were  called  to  be  saints.  The  Jews  had 
not  heard  that  it  was  the  Jewish  church  in  a  new- 
dress.  This  discovery  has  been  made  by  the  saga- 
cious Peter  Edwards.  The  devil  makes  mistakes 
sometimes,  for  by  persecuting,  he  sent  Philip  to  Sa- 
maria, who  there  preached  the  gospel  with  success; 
therefore  it  is  said,  "  When  they  believed  Philip 
preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  tl;iey  v/ere  hap- 


16  CANDID  REASONS  EXAxMINED. 

tized,  both  men  and  women:"  Acts  viii.  12.  meri 
and  women,  that  is  all.  What  a  fair  opportunity  tC) 
have  added  children,  but  silent  is  the  Holy  Ghost  on 
this  subject.  It  doth  not  appear  that  Philip  had 
formed  them  into  a  church  before  Peter  and  John 
came.  It  is  probable  they  were  then  formed  into  a 
church;  for  a  thousand  baptized  believers  would  not 
constitute  a  church,  without  a  voluntary  compact. 
Here  I  must  correct  one  of  Peter  Edwards's  mis- 
takes, which  he  repeats  often,  which  is  that  persons 
became  members  of  a  church  by  baptism.  Here 
was  no  church  formed  as  we  know  of;  baptism 
was  therefore  only  a  necessary  prerequisite  for 
membership.  A  similar  instance  we  have  in  this 
chapter,  verse  28.  Philip  baptized  the  eunuch;  but 
we  have  no  account  of  his  church  membership.  I 
am  rather  of  opiriion  that  Peter  Edwards  could  not 
name  one  to  which  he  belonged.  I  find  every  pas- 
sage corresponds  exactly  with  my  definition  of  a 
church:  hence  it  is  said  after  Paul's  conversion,  Acts 
ix.  31,  "  Then  had  the  churches  rest  throughout  all 
Judea,  and  Galilee,  and  Samaria,  and  were  edified, 
and  walking  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  in  the  com- 
fort of  the  Holy  Ghost  were  multiplied."  This  ac- 
count will  not  agree  with  infant  membership;  for 
they  cannot  be  said  to  be  edified,  nor  that  such  -^^alk 
in  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  comfort  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  phrases  are  only  applicable  to  persons 
come  to  the  vears  of  understandins^.  The  doctrine  of 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  17 

analogy,  implication  and  inference  can  have  no  place 
here, 

I  will  only  cite  one  text  more  from  the  Acts,  and 
pass  on  to  the  epistles,  viz.  "  Take  heed  therefore 
unto  yourselves  and  to  all  the  flock  over  which  the 
Holy  Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers  to  feed  the 
church  of  God,"  &c.  Acts  xx.  28.  The  word 
Church  used  here,  must  mean  them  at  Ephesus,  who 
were  called  and  professed  to  be  saints;  for  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  bishops  of  the  Ephesian  church,  to  feed 
the  flock,  over  which  they  presided.  I  never  under- 
stood, by  reading  the  scriptures,  that  it  was  the  duty 
of  bishops  to  feed  babies;  for  tlieir  mothers  were 
competent  to  that  business  at  that  time,  and  I  be- 
lieve they  remain  qualined,  at  present,  for  the  same 
duty.  To  feed  the  church  of  God  cannot  be  misun- 
derstood; for  every  one  must  know  that  they  were 
to  be  fed  with  the  sincere  milk  of  the  Avord,  that  they 
might  grow  in  grace,  &c.  Christ  said  to  Peter, 
"  Feed  my  lambs,  feed  my  sheep,"  by  which,  we 
must  understand  his  spiritual  ministrations,  suited 
to  the  conditions  of  the  various  classes  of  his  dis- 
ciples. 

Paul  gives  two  reasons  for  the  advice  gi^en  to 
the  Ephesian  bishops,  viz.  1.  That  after  his  depar- 
ture grievous  wolves  would  enter  in  among  them, 
&c.  2.  That  of  their  own  selves  shall  men  arise,  speak- 
ing perverse  things,  to  draw  away  disciples  after 
them.  Of  this  sort,  it  is  probable,  the  apostle  speaks. 
Gal.  vi.  12.  where  he  says,  "  as  many  as  desire  to 


18  CANDID  REASONS  EXx\MINED.     • 

make  a  fair  show  in  the  flesh  constrain  you  to  be 
circumcised." 

These  Judaizing  Galatians  M'ere  for  puting  new 
wine  into  old  bottles,  contrary  to  the  directions  of 
Christ.  It  is  granted  the  present  Judaizers  do  not 
insist  on  circumcision,  because  they  have  found  out 
a  substitute,  viz.  Baptism.  But  of  this  substitute, 
neither  Paul  nor  Barnabas  knew  any  thing. 
What  a  pity  that  none  thought  of  this  fine  con- 
ceit, that  baptism  'came  in  the  room  of  circum- 
cision! This  would  have  decided  the  whole  dispute 
at  Antioch,  without  Paul  and  Barnabas  travelling  to 
Jerusalem,  to  receive  advice  from  the  apostles,  elders 
and  church  there.  I  am  astonished  at  the  psedoran- 
tists  in  our  day,  that  they  can  read  Acts  xv.  and 
not  be  convinced  that  the  church,  at  that  time,  had 
never  heard  that  baptism  came  in  the  room  of  cir- 
cumcision; but  it  is  hard  to  convince  a  man  of  a 
very  profitable  mistake:  a  change  of  sentiments  on 
this  subject  might  hazard  loaves  and  fishes.  What 
a  pity  it  is  that  among  all  the  inspired  apostles,  not 
one  of  them  understood  the  subject  as  well  as  Peter 
Jldwards!  Had  he  been  at  Jerusalem,  he  would  un  - 
bhishingly  have  pronounced  them  a  set  of  ignorant 
men,  who  knew  not  that  baptism  came  in  room  of 
circumcision;  and  therefore,  logically  reasoning,  cir- 
cumcision was  at  an  end.  But  so  it  happened  that 
the  scriptures  were  finished,  without  Peter's  assist- 
ance; and  we  must  be  contented  with  them  as  they 
are;  and  as  they  are,  the}^  never  will  inform  us  that 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  19 

baptism  came  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  with  all 
the  help  of  Peter  Edwards's  analogy,  inference  and 
sophisms. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  examine  the  use  of  the 
word  EkkAyio-ioi,  in  some  of  the  epistles.  The  word  is 
not  used  in  the  epistle  to  the  Romans;  but  the  address 
contains  the  materials  of  a  church,  and  perhaps  they 
were  one,  when  the  apostle  ^vro15e,  chap.  i.  v.  7.  it  is 
said,  "  to  all  that  be  at  Rome,  beloved  of  God, 
called  to  be  saints."  The  true  character  of  a  gospel 
church;  but  in  the  1st  and  2d  epistles  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans, they  are  expressly  called  a  church.  I  will  trans- 
cribe the  words  and  make  some  remarks.  "  Unto  the 
church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth,  to  them  that 
are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints, 
\^7th  all  that  in  every  place  call  upon  the  name  of  Je- 
sus Christ  our  Lord."  1  Cor.  i.  2.  The  2d  epistle  is 
similar,  viz.  "  Unto  the  church  of  God  which  is  at 
Corinth,  with  all  the  saints  which  are  in  ail  Achaia." 
verse  1.  These  epistles  were  not  confined  to  the 
church  at  Corinth;  for  the  first  epistle  expressly  ex- 
tends to  all  that  in  every  place  call  upon  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  The  second  is  still  more  ex- 
plicit, if  possible,  viz.  "  with  ail  the  saints  which  are 
in  all  Achaia."  From  Paul's  address  to  these 
churches,  (for  he  includes  more  than  Corinth)  it  is 
evident  he  gives  us  the  true  character  of  ail  gospel 
churches  in  his  time,  viz.  they  were  called  to  be 
saints;  for  the  nonsense  of  calling  some  saints  by 
way  of  eminence,  as  St.   Matthew,    &c.  was  not 


20  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED 

known  in  the  apostle's  day.  Priestcraft  introduced 
this  distinction,  with  no  good  design.  They  were  in 
the  apostle's  days  all  saints  by  profession;  and  of  this 
sort  alone  were  the  churches  formed.  It  is  not  a  lit- 
tle surprising  to  see  a  man  prostituting  his  talents  by 
asserting  there  were  more  churches  in  Corinth  than 
one,  when  Paul  wrote;  and  all  his  proof  is  1  Cor. 
xiv.  34.  "  Let  your  women  keep  silence  in  the 
churches."  Let  this  gentleman  look  back  and 
blush  at  his  crude  productions,  fabricated  to  support 
a  cause,  that  with  all  the  assistance  that  bigotry  can 
give,  cannot  be  supported:  the  epistles  extended  to 
all  the  saints  in  all  Achaia. 

Were  we  to  cite  all  the  epistles  to  the  churches, 
we  should  find,  they  were  all  called  to  be  saints;  and 
W'hat  the  apostles  predicted  respecting  the  materials 
of  a  gospel  church  are  iiiconsistent  with  the  state  of 
babes.  After  all  my  care  in  examining  the  scriptures,, 
both  in  Greek  and  English,  I  do  not  find  any  foun- 
dation for  baby  membership.  I  still  remain  surprised, 
w^hy  it  has  now  any  advocates.  Formerly,  when  su- 
perstition and  error  prevailed,  they  had  some  sort  of 
argument  for  infant  baptism,  because  they  held  it 
washed  away  original  sin;   but  very  few  are  of  that 
opinion  now,  at  least  they  will  not  generally  openl\ 
avow  it.    Peter  Edwards  on  that  subject  has  been 
more  candid  than  any  author  I  have  yet  met  ^vith; 
and  yet  common  sense  Avould  induce  every  man  to 
make  the  concession;  but  pride,  prejudice  or  obsti- 
nacy will  not  allow  tliem.    Peter  Edv^ards  has  on 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  2i 

this  subject  done  himself  some  honour;  but  I  doubt 
he  did  not  consider  the  consequence;  and  I  suspect 
he  has  gi-anted  more  than  some  of  his  bretliren  will 
like.  He  says,  "  I  do  not  suppose  that  infants,  pro- 
perly speaking,  receive  any  present  benefit  by  being 
baptized;*  an  honest  concession;  but  allowing  this 
concession  to  be  true,  he  mis:ht  have  saved  himself 
the  trouble  of  writing  more  than  fifty  pages,  and  that 
would  have  saved  me  the  trouble  of  reading  such  un- 
profitable writings.  It  is  granted  ihat  infants,  pro- 
perly speaking,  receive  no  present  benefit  from  bap- 
tism. I  will  make  appear,  that,  in  future  it  may  be 
a  great  disadvantage  to  them.  When  I  touch  on  that 
subject,  the  reader  may  weigh  my  reasons.  That 
any  should  be  members  in  a  society  in  which  they 
can  be  of  no  use,  nor  receive  any  real  benefit  from 
their  membership,  is  so  foolish  in  itself,  that  nothing 
but  intoxication,  by  the  wine  of  mystery  Babylon, 
could  induce  a  reasonable  man  to  try  to  support 
such  a  cause;  but  as  light  appears,  this  with  other 
superstitions  will  die  a  natural  death. 

In  many  other  places  in  the  New  Testament,  the 
Greek  word  iKKht^a-tcc  is  used,  and  rendered  by  the 
translators.  Church.  Dr.  George  Campbell  of  Aber- 
deen expressly  asserts  that  the  word  EKuXyis-ioi  has  in 
the  holy  scriptures  only  two  meanings:  one  is  a  sin- 
gle congregation;  the  other  is  all  the  cliristian  com- 
munity. By  my  examination  of  the  Greek,  it  appear-s 

*  Candid  Reasons,  page  156. 


22  *  '        CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

to  me,  to  mean  the  whole  elect,  redeemed  by  the 
blood  of  Christ,  or  those,  secondly,  who  are  renew- 
ed by  the  Holy  Ghost,  called  to  be  saints.  I  have 
met  with  some  authors  that  have  fancied  that  in  the 
Old  Testament  in  the  Hebrew,  there  is  a  word  cor- 
responding to  the  Greek  word  EnKKyjc-itx.;  but  from 
the  very  passages,  to  which  they  refer,  I  am  fully 
convinced  they  fail  of  proof.  Nothing  but  custom, 
without  any  examination,  could  induce  any  one  to 
call  the  Jews,  consisting  of  men,  women  and  chil- 
dren, a  church.  No  word  in  the  English  language 
has  been,  and  still  continues  more  to  be  abused  than 
church.  It  is  now  common  to  call  a  place  of  wor- 
ship a  church;  when  at  the  same  time,  the  scripture 
gives  no  authority  for  such  language.  This  is  such 
nonsense  that  nothing  but  custom  could  reconcile 
any  christians  to  such  impropriety  of  language. 

It  is  granted  that  in  some  places,  the  word 
ExJtAjjtTia  is  used  in  the  Septuagint;  but  for  the  most 
part  it  means  an  assembly  called  together,  or  a 
voluntary  assembly.  The  common  appellation  of 
the  Jews  is,  'Zwayuyi^,  which  properl}^  means  a 
congregation.  And  even  the  word  Congi'cgation  is 
not  applied  to  the  Jews  for  more  than  400  years  after 
the  circumcision  of  Abraham.  But  I  find  pasdoran- 
tists  are  not  agreed  when  the  figment  of  a  Jewish 
church  began.  Seme,  as  Peter  Edwards,  begin  it 
with  Abraham;  others,  with  some  more  sense,  begin 
it  with  Moses.  Although  the  Septuagint  has  used 
the  word,  it  was  impossible,  they  could  have  the 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  2S 

same  idea  which  the  word  conveys  in  tlie  gospel 
dispensation;  for  no  such  body  then  existed  as  a  gos- 
pel church.  They  could  mean  nothing  but  an  as- 
sembly called  together;  but  a  gospel  church  is  a 
church  when  they  are  not  convened.  When  John 
wrote  to  the  seven  churches,  are  we  to  think  they 
were  convnened  together?  No,  they  became  churches 
by  voluntary  confederation.  They  gave  themselves 
to  the  Lord,  and  by  voluntary  compact  became  a  dis- 
tinct religious  body,  invested  with  all  the  power 
Christ  has  left  on  earth.  One  text  I  have  omitted, 
which  may  be  brought  in  favour  of  calling  the  Jew- 
ish nation  a  church.  Acts  vii.  38.  "  This  is  he  that 
was  in  the  church  in  the  wilderness,  with  the  angel 
which  spake  to  him  in  the  mount  Sina,  and  with  our 
fathers,  who  received  the  lively  oracles  to  give  unto 
us."  In  this  passage,  the  church  is  distinct  from 
the  phrase,  "  and  with  our  fathers."  To  under- 
stand this  text  rightly,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
my  system  is,  that  God  in  all  ages  had  an  EKKhy^a-ioi, 
or  a  people  called  by  grace  to  be  saints,  from  Abel 
to  Moses,  and  from  Moses  to  Christ;  but  they  were 
not  formed  into  a  body  from  the  world;  and  although 
they  were  essentially,  they  were  not  formally  a 
church;  and  indeed  no  nation  can  be,  with  any  pro- 
priety of  language,  called  a  church,  without  los- 
ing the  meaning  of  the  word  EKnAri^nx.  Before  I 
close  my  pamphlet,  this  verse  shall  be  more  fully 
considered.  , 

The  paedorantists  always  amuse  people  with  mys- 


24  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

terious  wonders  about  the  patriarch  Abraham. 
There,  they,  for  the  most  part,  begin  their  imagin- 
ary church,  and  expatiate  htrgeiy  about  a  covenant 
made  with  him,  he.  When  I  hear  this  kind  of  talk, 
I  think  of  the  Lady  of  Loretta,  so  much  ti-mcd  by 
the  papists;  but  when  the  French  came  to  the  place, 
they  stripped  her  of  her  splendid  apparel,  and  found 
the  wonderful  lady  only  a  chunk  of  wood  finely 
dressed,  by  which  the  devotees  had  been  deceived 
for  ages;  just  so  will  the  event  be  when  Abraham's 
covenant  is  properly  examined,  it  will  be  found  no- 
thing to  the  purpose  for  which  Peter  Edwards  brings 
it,  when  he  said  infants  were  once  members  of  the 
church  of  God,  and  never  have  been  cast  out,  &c.  Let 
vis  freely  examine  the  whole  history  on  this  subject, 
and  we  shall  find  no  foundation  for  infant  member- 
ship in  any  church  at  that  time,  nor  at  any  other  time. 
This  will  bring  us  back  to  the  xii.  of  Gen.  1,  2  &  3d 
verses,  viz.  "  Now  the  Lord  had  said  to  Abram, 
get  thee  out  of  thy  country,  and  from  thy  kindred, 
and  from  thy  father's  house,  unto  a  land  that  I  will 
show  thee.  And  I  will  make  thee  a  great  nation,  and 
I  will  bless  thee,  and  make  thy  name  great;  ai^id  thou 
shalt  be  a  blessing.  And  I  will  bless  them  that  bless 
thee;  and  curse  him  that  curseth  thee:  and  in  thee 
shall  all  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  In  Gen. 
xxii.  18.  it  is  said,  "  And  in  thy  seed  shall  ail  the 
nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed."  Abram  obeyed 
God,  and  the  pron:iise  of  giving  the  land  of  Canaan 
was  renewed,  in  v.   7.   it  is  said,  "  unto  thy  seed 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  ^ 

will  I  give  this  land;  and  there  builded  he  an  altar 
unto  the  Lord,  who  appeared  unto  him."  The  Holy- 
Ghost  has  been  very  particular  in  expressing  what 
God  promised  to  Abraham.  A  spiritual  improvement 
on  the  subject,  and  the  literal  meaning  of  what  God 
promised,  are  a  very  different  things;  so  the  natural 
meaning  of  s^ed,  and  the  mystical  improvement  of 
that  phrase,  are  very  different.  Paol  explains  the  seed 
to  mean  Christ.  Gal.  lii.  16.  Now  to  Abraham  and 
his  seed  were  the  promises  made.  He  saith  not,  and 
to  seeds^  as  of  many;  but  as  of  one,  and  to  thy  seed, 
which  is  Clii'ist.  We  see  that  in  a  literal  sense  the 
promise  refers  to  the  land  of  Canaan;  and  the  seed 
were  Abraham's  descendants  or  posterity;  some  of 
which  should  possess  that  land;  and  in  fulness  of 
time,  they  were  put  in  possession  of  it.  This  dis- 
tinction being  preserved,  it  is  easy  to  answer  all  the 
jargon  we  hear  on  this  subject.  Abraham  had  a 
seed,  in  a  literal  sense;  and  he  had  a  seed,  in  a  spiri- 
tual sense;  and  in  this  sense,  Christ  and  all  the  elect 
are  his  spiritual  seed.  This  is  so  plain  in  scripture, 
that  any  man  must  be  wilfully  blind  who  doth  not 
see  it.  Never  was  any  subject  more  perverted  than 
this,  with  a  view  to  establish  the  traditions  of  men 
and  priestcraft. 

To  do  justice  to  this  subject  we  will  now  con- 
sider what  is  said  in  Gen.  xvii.  which  is  very  much 
used  by  all  paedorantist  authors,  yea  w^onders  are  to 
be  found  here;  but  the  greatest  wonder  is,  why  pae- 
dorantists  ai'e  so  fond  of  it,  seeing  that  it  v/ill  ne\er 

E 


^  CANl^ID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

prove  that  the  Jews  were,  or  any  nation  can  be,  cal- 
led a  church,  agreeably  to  the  meaning  of  the  Greek 

word  EstJcAtjCiot. 

Peter  Edwards  would  have  his  readers  believe 
he  finds  a  congregational  church  in  this  chapter;  and 
therefore  he  says,  "  all  we  know  of  the  church  is, 
that  its  members  consisted  of  adults  and  infants, 
who  were  initiated  by  the  same  rite;  that  sacrifices 
were  offered;  and  it  is  probable,  that  the  father  of 
the  family,  or  some  respectable  person,  did  officiate 
in  their  assemblies,  as  a  priest.  Here  is  a  congrega- 
tional church,  a  simple  worship,  and  some  creditable 
officiating  priest.*  Here  the  reader  will  observe, 
that  Peter  Edwards  seems  in  some  difficulty  about  his 
imagimiry  church,  when  he  descends  to  make  such 
an  humble  acknowledgment,  "that  all  we  know  about 
it  is,  that  it  consisted  of  adults  and  infants."  Pray, 
Peter,  who  taught  you  to  call  Abraliam's  family  a 
church?  Surely  the  God  of  heaven  never  did.  What 
if  a  man  is  a  worshipper  of  God,  must  we  suppose 
there  is  a  church?  Preposterous  nonsense!  were 
there  not  godly  families  before  and  after  the  flood? 
Where  is  Enoch?  where  is  Noah?  where  is  Job? 
where  is  Melchisideck,  priest  of  the  most  high  God? 
are  he  and  his  worshippers  called  a  church?  We 
know  the  design  of  this  sort  of  talk  is,  to  afford  some 
ground  for  the  childish  doctrine  of  infant  member- 
siiip  under  the  gospel  dispensation;  but  this  will 

*  Candid  Reasons,  p.  87. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  27 

have  no  weight,  but  with  the  superstitious,  who 
wish  to  have  it  so.  Can  Peter  Edwards  or  any  other 
man  prove  that  Abraham  and  his  family  ever  assem. 
bled  for  worship?  No  change  took  place,  as  we  read 
of,  in  Abraham's  conduct  after  circumcision  more 
than  before.  It  was  his  custom  before  it,  to  offer  sa- 
crifices; it  was  his  custom  afterward;  and  so  it  was 
the  custom  of  Job,  and  of  all  pious  people  before  and 
after  the  flood.  To  me  it  is  astonishing  that  wise  and 
learned  men  can  try  to  support  such  a  system;  but 
education  can  do  wonders,  and  make  wise  men  act 
as  children. 

I  am  now  considering  the  17th  chapter  of  Gene- 
sis. This  is  supposed  to  contain  the  magazine,  from 
whence  unanswerable  arguments  are  brought  to  sup- 
port infant  church  membership.  I  will  first  trans- 
cribe all  the  verses  in  it,  relative  to  the  subject,  and 
candidly  consider  the  whole;  and  I  am  fully  persuad- 
ed, it  contains  not  one  argument  for  calling  the  Jews 
a  church,  or  the  descendants  of  Abraham  church 
members.  I  will  quote  the  whole  before  I  make  any 
remarks,  v.  2.  *'  I  will  make  my  covenant  between 
thee  and  me,  and  I  will  multiply  thee  exceedingly. 
V.  4.  As  for  me,  behold  my  covenant  is  with  thee; 
and  thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  many  nations,  v.  5.  For 
a  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee.  v.  6. 
And  I  will  make  thee  exceedmg  fruitful,  and  I  will 
make  nations  of  thee,  v.  7.  And  I  will  establish  my 
covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after 
thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  coven- 


28  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

ant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee.  V.  8.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy 
seed  after  thee,  all  the  land  a\  herein  thou  art  a  stran- 
ger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting  pos- 
session, and  I  will  be  their  God.  v.  9.  Thou  shalt 
keep  my  covenant  therefore,  thou  and  thy  seed  after 
thee,  in  their  generations,  v.  10.  This  is  my  coven- 
ant which  thou  shalt  keep,  between  me  and  you,  and 
thy  seed  after  thee,  every  man  child  among  you  shall 
be  circumcised,  v.  11.  And  ye  shall  circumcise  the 
flesh  of  yoi;r  ioreskin,  and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the 
covenant  between  me  and  you.  v.  12.  And  he  that 
is  eight  days  shall  be  circumcised  among  you,  every 
man  child  in  your  generations."  Circumcision  is 
mentioned  in  some  other  verses  in  the  chapter;  but 
as  they  are.  not  relative  to  the  subject,  they  are 
omitted. 

For  two  reasons,  I  have  transcribed  these  verses. 
The  first  is,  that  the  whole  may  be  seen  without  turn- 
ing to  the  Bible;  but  tht  second  and  great  reason 
is,  that  it  is  pretended,  some  where  in  them,  we  shall 
find  infant  church  membership.  I  wish  them  to  be 
well  examined,  and  the  plainer  it  will  appear  that 
infant  church  membership  is  a  vam  and  groundless 
fancy,  fabricated  to  support  an  antichristian  super- 
stition. To  do  justice  to  the  verses,  I  propose  to  ob- 
serve the  following  method: 

1.  To  give  the  meaning  of  the  word  Covenant, 

2.  Point  out  what  God  promised  to  give  to 
Abraliam  and  his  seed. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  29 

3.  Demonstrate  who  are  meant  by  Abraham's 
seed,  in  a  literal  sense,  in  these  verses,  with  some 
remarks  to  prove  who  are  Abraham's  seed  in  a  spi- 
ritual sense. 

4.  Make  some  remarks  respecting  circi-mcision 
as  a  token  of  the  covenasit.  This  appeared  to  me, 
the  best  way  to  end  this  dispute,  for  it  will  brhig 
us  to  explain  the  terms  used;  otherwise,  we  may  do 
as  Peter  Edwards  has  done,  when  he  pretended  to 
explain  Acts  ii.  39.  After  wasting  about  ten  psges, 
he  never  condescended  to  tell  the  reader  wnat  was 
promised.  I  shall  hereafter  make  some  remarks  on 
that  passage.  To  pursue  my  plan  I  will, 

1.  Give  the  meaning  of  the  word  Covenant. 

The  word  in  scripture  means  the  same  it  doth 
in  common  language,  viz.  an  agreement  betwen  two 
parties.  So  David  and  Jonathan  made  an  agreement, 
which  is  called  a  covenant.  Abraham  made  an  agree- 
ment with  Abimelech  and  liis  posterity,  which  is 
called  a  covenant.  This  agi-eement  is  sometimes  con- 
ditional, and  other  times  unconditional.  God  pro- 
mised absolutely  to  give  to  Abraham  and  to  his 
seed,  the  land  of  Canaan.  This  was  an  unconditional 
agreement,  by  which  God  bound  himself  to  confer 
the  blessings  promised;  but  their  continuance  in  that 
land  was  conditional;  and  they  broke  that  covenant, 
and  God  rejected  them  from  being  his  people.  At 
Horeb,  God  said,  "  Now  if  you  will  cbej  my  voice 
indeed,  and  keep  my  covenant,  then  }  e  c^hall  be  a 
peculiar  treasure  unto  me,  above  all  people;  for  all 


30  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

the  earth  is  mine."  Gen.  xxi.  32.  Exod.  xix.  5,  6^- 
We  can  be  at  no  loss  respecting  this  covenant,  if  we 
read  Deut.  v.  23.  when  God  made  a  gracious  pro- 
mise to  Noah,  that  he  would  not  destroy  the  earth  by 
a  second  flood,  as  will  appear  by  reading  Gen.  ix.  9. 
11.  he  calls  it  a  covenant.  In  this  unconditional 
sense,  the  term  covenant  js  to  be  understood  in  the 
promises  made  to  Abraham.  We  proceed  to  the  se- 
cond thing  proposed,  which  was  to  point  out  what 
God  promised  to  give  to  Abraham  and  his  seed. 

The  only  way  to  come  to  the  true  meanmg,  is  to 
recite  all  passages  on  this  subject;  for  here  some- 
where, all  the  Judaizers  found  their  infant  member- 
ship under  the  gospel  dispensation;  yet  upon  a  fair 
and  candid  examination,  we  shall  not  find  one  text 
favourable  to  that  mistaken  sentiment.  We  will  be- 
gin at  the  xii.  chap,  of  Genesis,  and  follow  the  sa- 
cred historian;  and  truth  will  open  plainly  to  our  un- 
derstandings. V.  1.  "  Now  the  Lord  said  to  Abram, 
get  thee  out  of  thy  country — unto  a  land  that  I  will 
show  thee.  v.  3.  And  in  thee  shall  all  the  families  of 
the  earth  be  blessed.  Abram  obeyed  God,  and  went 
into  the  land  of  Canaan,  v.  7.  There  God  appeared  to 
him,  and  said  unto  thy  seed  will  I  give  this  land.  Chap, 
xiii.  v.  15.  God  said,  all  the  land  which  thou  seest, 
to  thee  will  I  give  it,  and  to  thy  seed  for  ever.  And 
I  will  make  thy  seed  as  the  dust  of  the  earth.  Chap. 
XV.  V.  7.  I  am  the  Lord,  that  brought  thee  out  of 
Ur  of  the  Chaldees  to  give  thee  this  land  to  inherit. 
V.  18.  That  same  day  God  made  a  covenant  with 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  $1 

Abram,  saying,  unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this  land, 
from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto  the  great  river,  the 
river  Euphrates."  The  reader  will  please  to  observe 
that  all  the  promises,  contained  in  this  covenant,  were 
made  to  Abraham  fifteen  years  before  his  circumci- 
sion; yet  it  was  neither  a  duty  nor  privilege  to  be 
circumcised;  and  witliout  a  divine  command,  it  would 
never  have  been  his  duty.  Circumcision  was  a  mark 
in  the  flesh,  and  a  token  of  that  covenant  made  with 
Abraham  in  his  uncircumcised  state.  This  will  ap- 
pear more  fully,  when  we  consider  the  subject  par- 
ticularly. Abraliam  received  the  promises  and  was 
justified  before  his  circumcision.  Paul  improves 
this,  Rom.  iv.  3,  10,  11.  The  Jews  depended  much 
on  their  circumcision,  which  was  works,  and  that 
not  their  own,  but  of  others;  but  Paul  proved  that 
we  are  justified  by  faith,  and  not  by  works,  and  ex- 
emplified the  subject  by  referring  to  Abraham,  there- 
fore he  said,  "  For  we  say,  that  faith  was  reckoned 
to  Abraham  for  righteousness."  How  then  was  it 
reckoned?  when  in  circumcision  or  in  uncircumci- 
sion?  Not  in  circumcision,  but  in  uncircumcision. 
And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of 
the  righteousness  of  the  faith,  which  he  had,  being 
uncircumcised.  This  passage  shall  be  hereafter  con- 
sidered more  fully. 

The  xvii.  of  Genesis  has  been  brought  to  coun. 
tenance  infant  membership;  but,  upon  a  fair  investi- 
gation, we  shall  not  find  one  argument  for  it;  but  on 
tlie  other  liand,  we  shall  see,  that  all  the  promises 


,32  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

mentioned  there,  literally  refer  to  the  land  of  Canaan, 
and  God's  faithful  engagement  to  preserve  them  into 
the  possession  of  it.  We  grant  that  these  promises 
may  be  considered  in  a  spiritual  sense;  but  in  that 
sense,  we  must  understand  Seed  to  mean  the  Lord 
Jesus  Chi'ist  and  his  whole  elect,  and  not  Abraham's 
natural  posterity.  The  reason  why  this  subject  has 
been  enveloped  in  darkness,  is  for  want  of  explana- 
tion; and  the  reason  why  it  has  not  been  explained 
honestly  and  rationally  is  because  this  would  effectu- 
ally ruin  the  whole  system.  When  men  set  out 
wrong,  pride  of  heart,  combined  with  traditional 
blindness,  prevents  their  embracing  the  truth.  They 
are  driven  to  the  shifts  of  analogy,  inference  or  im- 
plication, to  torture  the  scripture  to  give  a  sense, 
which  was  never  designed  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  It 
will  appear  by  reading  the  promises,  contained  in 
this  and  the  preceeding  chapters,  that  God  promised 
nothing  more  literally  to  Abraham  and  his  natural 
posterity,  than  the  sure  possession  of  the  land  of. 
Canaan;  also  that  his ,  posterity  should  be  very 
numerous;  and  that  kmgs  should  descend  from  him; 
and  as  he  had  promised  to  be  the  God  of  Abraham 
and  his  seed,  this  was  literally  fulfilled  in  bringing 
Israel  into  the  land  of  Canaan,  and. preserving  them 
there',  till  their  sins  rendered  it  necessary  for  him  to 
disDOssess  them. 

X 

How  God  has  fulfilled  all  these  promises  literally, 
if  any  thing  more  is  meant  in  these  promises,  it  must 
be  understood  in  a  spiritual  sense.    And  no  baptist 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  33 

has  ever  denied  the  sph'itual  improvement.  All  this 
is  the  literal  meaning  of  the  following  verses,  viz. 
5,  6,  7",  8.  "  Neither  shall  thy  name  any  more  be 
called  Abram,  but  thy  name  shall  be  Abraham;  for 
a  father  of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee.  And  I 
will  make  thee  exceeding  fruitful,  and  I  vi^ill  make 
nations  of  thee;  and  kings  shall  come  out  of  thee. 
And  I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and 
thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in  their  generations,  for 
an  everlasting  covenant;  to  be  a  God  unto  thee  and 
thy  seed  after  thee.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and 
to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  ait  a 
stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting 
possession;  and  I  will  be  their  God."  Now  every 
man  who  will  exercise  reason  must  see  that  all  these 
promises  are  of  a  temporary  nature  literally,  but  they 
are  capable  of  a  spiritual  improvement;  and  this  v\Aill 
appear,  when  we  consider  the  third  head,  which  is  to 
show,  who  are  meant  by  the  seed.  1.  Negatively, 
not  all  Abraham's  natural  posterity;  for  neither  Ish- 
mael,  nor  the  six  sons  of  Keturah  were  included. 
Gen.  XXV.  6.  And  Paul  said,  they  are  not  all  Israel, 
which  are  of  Israel.  Rom.  ix.  6.  And  it  is  added, 
^*  Neither  because  they  are  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
are  they  called  children,  but  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed 
be  called;  that  is,  they  which  are  the  children  of  the 
flesh,  these  are  not  the  children  of  God;  but  the 
children  of  the  promise  are  counted  for  the  seed." 
Rom  ix.  7,  8.  .These  texts  put  the  subject  beyond 
all  reasonable  contradictign:  that  the  promises,  made 


34  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED, 

to  Abraham,  did  not  refer  to  all  his  natural  descend- 
ents;  neither  did  God  engage  to  confer  any  spiritual 
blessings  on  all  the  natural  posterity  of  this  patriarchs 
From  the  passages  cited,  it  is  plain  that  the  pro- 
mises are  to  be  understood  in  a  natural  and  in  a  spi- 
ritual  sense.  Now  if  we  consider  the  providence  of 
God,  in  bringing  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  with  a  high 
hand;  his  power  displayed  at  the  Red  Sea;  his  feed- 
ing them  miraculously  in  the  wilderness  forty  years; 
his  discomfiting  all  nations  before  them,  and  abso- 
lutely giving  them  the  land  of  promise;  we  see  God's 
promise  fulfilled,  when  he  said  "  I  will  be  a  God 
unto  thee  and  unto  thy  seed  after  thee."  It  is  plaip 
that  the  promise  is  to  be  taken  temporally  and  spi-^ 
ritually,  or  the  great  apostle  Paul  made  an  egregious 
mistake  on  the  subject.  Gal.  iii.  16.  We  will  just 
cite  the  words,  "  Now  to  Abraliam  and  his  seed 
were  the  promises  made;  he  saith  not  and  to  seedsy 
as  of  many;  but  as  of  one,  and  to  thy  seed,  which 
is  Christ."  This  text  stares  Peter  Edwards  sternly 
in  the  face,  and  accuses  him  of  handling  the  word  of 
God  deceitfully;  for  in  all  that  he  has  said,  he  never 
informed  the  reader,  that  in  a  spiritual  sense,  the 
word  seed  meant  Christ  and  his  elect.  We  have 
proved  that  God  has  fulfilled  his  promise  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed,  in  a  literal  sense;  and  as  Christ, 
In  his  humiliation,  was  the  seed  in  a  spiritual  sense, 
he  fulfilled  his  promise  to  him.  It  is  said,  "  I  have 
cail(.a  thee  in  righteousness,  and  will-  hold  thy  hand, 
and  will  keep  thee,  and  will  give  thee  for  a  covcnajit 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  35 

of  the  people,  for  a  light  of  the  Gentiles."  Isaiah  xlii. 
6.  And  again  it  is  said,  "  He  shall  see  his  seed,  and 
the  pleasure  of  the  Lord  shall  prosper  in  his  hand." 
lasiah  liii.  10.  From  these  texts,  and  many  simi- 
lar, we  see  Christ  has  a  seed,  which  is  his  elect,  who 
shall  hear  his  voice  and  follow  him.  We  are  inform- 
ed how  we  are  made  partakers  of  Christ,  with  all  his 
benefits;  and  that  is  by  the  operations  of  his  Holy 
Spirit  working  m  us  a  living  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 
"  For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God,  by  faith  in 
Christ  Jesus."  Gal.  iii,  26.  And  again  in  the  29th 
verse,  "  And  if  ye  are  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abra- 
ham's seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise."  I 
shall  touch  on  this  subject  again,  when  I  shall  con- 
sider  Peter  Edwai^ds's  abuse  of  the  apostle  Peter's 
words  in  Acts  ii.  39.  The  reason  why  I  have  been 
so  particular  on  this  subject,  as  truth  is  my  object, 
was  to  find  out  the  origin  of  Peter  Edwards's  church 
of  God;  but  I  have  as  yet  found  nothing  like  a 
church  fornially;  nor  can  I  find  when  it  was  formed 
or  constituted;  nor  can  I  guess  what  verse  he  has 
fixed  on  for  the  formation  of  his  church.  I  think  it 
may  be  with  propriety  said,  it  existed  only  in  the 
brains  of  pasdorantists,  and  its  essence  and  exist- 
ence totally  invisible.  When  I  come  more  fully  to 
explain  the  word  E}cx,A>j(r<ct,  I  will  demonstrate  that 
God  had  a  people  called  by  grace,  near  two  thou- 
sand years  before  Abraham  was  born,  and  in  every 
age  of  the  world;  but  they  were  not  formally  a 
church,  tliat  is  a  voluntary  society,  before  the  gospel 


36  CANDID  REASCWS  i:.XAi\lllNLU 

dispensation.  I  cannot  find  when  Peter's  imaginary 
.  church  was  formed;  nor  do  I  know,  any  more  than  th& 
pen  in  my  hand,  what  verse  he  has  fixed  on.    I 
would  be  glad  to  know  how  long  this  church  ex- 
isted before  circumcision  took  place;  for  common 
sense  would  inform  us  that  no  man  can  enter  into  a 
house  before  it  is  built;  and  a  church  must  neces- 
sai'ily  exist,  before  any  person  can  be  initiated  into 
it.  I  rather  think,  Peter  never  thought  on  the  sub- 
ject, or  he  would  have  said  less  about  his  initiating 
institute.  I  would  thank  Peter  or  any  other  to  tell  me 
what  were  the  names  of  the  members  of  the  church. 
Sarah,  that  good  old  woman,  was  excluded,  because 
of  her  natural  incompetency.  A  pitiful  church  in- 
deed, that  excluded  one  half  of  the  nation  for  no 
other  fault,   only  because  they  were  females.  Can 
this  be  what  Peter  Edwards  means  by    the  best 
church  in  the  world?*  I  am  still  in  search  for  Pe- 
ter's best  church;  but  my  success  is  likely  to  be  as 
a  certain  society  looking  for  the  widow'3  son.   Peter 
Edwards  has  used  the  word  Church  at  least  130 
times,  neverthdeas  I  cannot  find  it.  As  I  have  no- 
thing but  truth  in  view,  I  must  try  again;  and  I  find 
Peter  says,  "  the  relation  between  God  and  this  so- 
ciety, is  formed  by  God  himself,  by  declaring  he  is, 
and  will  be  their  God. "  i  It  must  be  remembered  that 
this  promise  was  made  to  Abraham  before  circumci- 
sion: how  then,  with  common  sense,  can  it  be  said, 
that  he  entered  into  it  by  circumcision?  For  he  must 

*  Candid  Reasons,  I-''-  r  Candid  Keasnnp.  S'^. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  3-7 

be  out  of  it,  before  he  could  be  initiated.  What  re- 
ligious jargon  men  can  write!  Pray,  in  what  part  of 
scripture  do  we  find  God  calling  a  promise  a  church? 
If  a  promise  makes  a  church,  Noah  had  a  very  nu- 
merous one;  for  it  included  all  the  beasts  of  the 
earth.  We  know  this  fictitious  chimera  is  formed 
to  lay  a  foundation  for  p^dorantism;  but  if  we  ex- 
amine the  subject,  we  shall  find  the  fancies  of  men 
erecting  that  which  never  existed.  This  sort  of  talk 
will  never  affect  the  baptist  cause. 

I  shall  make  a  few  remarks  on  circumcision  and 
proceed  on  the  subject. 

I  take  nothing  secondhanded.  I  will  give  scrip- 
ture to  prove  my  arguments.  This  will  bring  me 
back  to  the  xvii.  chapter  of  Genesis,  where  we  shall 
find  the  command  for  this  institute  in  the  1 1th  verse. 
^'  And  ye  shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of  your  fore- 
skin, and  it  shall  be  a  tolcen  of  the  covenant  between 
me  and  you."  This  command  was  given  to  Abra- 
ham about  twenty  years  after  God  had  appeared  to 
him,  and  gave  him  the  promises  in  his  uncireumcised 
state;  and  this  institute  was  neither  a  privilege  nor 
a  duty  all  that  time.  And  what  made  it  a  duty  now? 
The  command  of  God,  and  not  the  promise.  Here 
we  see  what  the  literal  meaning  of  the  rite  was,  viz. 
a  token  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  Abraham. 
God  calls  the  rainbow  a  token,  a  token  of  the  co- 
venant between  him  and  the  earth.  And  in  every 
place,  it  is  used  for  a  sign;  it  means  the  same  thing. 
This  mark  in  the  flesh  of  all  Abraham's  posterity ,, 


38      CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

was  a  sign  of  the  covenant,  which  God  made  with 
Abraham,  ^vherein  he  had  promised  to  give  the  land 
of  Canaan  to  him  and  his  seed.  And  nothing  else  is 
literally  contained  in  it. 

Notwithstanding  all  the  noise  we  hear  about  it, 
the  word  is  often  abused;  for  it  meant  nothing  but  a 
sign  of  the  covenant,  which  served  to  bring  to  re- 
membrance that  God  had  promised  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan to  Abraham  and  his  descendents.  This  was  no 
appendage  to  circumcision,  as  Peter  Edwards 
groundlessly  asserted;  for  it  was  promised  before 
circumcision,  consequently  could  not  be  an  append- 
age added  to  it.  I  often  hear  paedorantists,  by  ana- 
logy or  inference,  strain  this  subject  beyond  truth 
and  decency,  by  calling  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper  sealing  ordinances,  and  the  seals  of  the  co- 
venant. The  word  Seal  is  not  used  to  any  person, 
only  to  Abraham;  in  Rom.  iv.  11.  it  is  said,  "  He 
received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righ- 
teousness of  the  faith,  which  he  had,  being  uncir- 
cumcised."  But  it  is  never  said  to  be  a  seal  to  any 
of  his  posterity;  nor  could  it  be  said  of  them;  for 
they  were  circumcised  when  they  knew  nothing 
about  such  faith  as  Abraham  had.  Paul,  instead  of 
using  the  word  token,  calls  it  a  sign;  and  this  was  a 
seal,  or  confirmation  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith, 
which  he  had  before  he  was  circumcised.  Surely 
circumcision  was  no  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith  to  Ishmael,  who  was  an  ungodly  youth. 

To  tlie  descendents  of  Abraliam,  circumcision 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  39 

was  only  a  token,  that  they  were  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, to  whom  God  had  promised  to  give  the  land 
of  Canaan.  All  that  is  contained  more  in  the  promise 
was  fulfilled  in  God's  preserving,  multiplying  and 
protecting  them  in  the  possession  of  the  land.  If 
any  thing  spiritual  was  designed,  wheii  God  said  he, 
would  be  a  God  unto  Abraham  and  his  seed;  and  if 
by  seed  is  meant  every  descendent;  then  every  indi- 
vidual must  be  saved,  if  God  has  fulfilled  his  pro- 
mise; but  the  Jews  were  not  a  nation  of  saints,  but 
the  very  reverse  generally.  The  whole  history  of 
them  shows  them  to  be,  a  wicked,  rebellious  and 
idolatrous  people. 

Peter  Edwards  never  tells  us  where  to  find  his 
feest  church  in  the  world.  All  I  can  say  after  my 
best  endeavours  to  find  it,  is  that  it  is  totally  invisi- 
ble; yet  Peter  gives  his  definition  of  it,  viz.  "  A 
church  is  a  society  that  stands  in  special  relation  to 
God,  being  instituted  for  religious  purposes."*  Pray, 
when  and  where  was  it  instituted?  I  cannot  find  any 
trace  of  it,  nor  any  scriptural  authority  to  call  the 
Jewish  nation  a  church.  All  talk  about  a  Jewish 
church,  without  telling  us,  when,  where,  and  how, 
it  was  instituted,  is  merely  childish  prattle,  calcu- 
lated to  amuse  the  simple.  Must  there  be  a  church 
instituted,  because  God  made  promises  to  Abraham, 
literally,  only  of  a  temporary  nature,  and  command- 
ed to  circumcise  himself,  and  his  posterity?  By  no 

*  Candid  Reasons^  page  3n. 


40  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

means.  Melchisecleck  was  the  priest  of  the  most 
high  God;  and  he  must  have  had  some  rehgious 
rites,  or  how  could  he  officiate  as  a  priest?  and  yet 
we  read  nothing  about  his  church;  and  we  would 
hear  as  little  about  the  Abrahamic  church,  if  some 
pbject  was  not  in  view,  besides  truth,  and  the  edifi- 
cation of  the  body  of  Christ.  Peter  Edwards  seems 
not  very  well  suited  ^with  Mr.  Booth's  definition  of 
the  Jewish  economy,  when  he  called  it,  an  ecclesi- 
astico-political  constitution.*  I  acknowledge  that 
Mr.  Booth  was  not  quite  correct  in  this  passage;  for 
there  was  nothins;  ecclesiastical  in  the  Jewish  eco- 
nomy.  It  was  merely  a  civil  government,  with  some 
form  of  religious  worship,  and  religious  rites,  which 
were  shadows  of  good  things  to  come.  Surely  if  a 
nation  can  be  called  a  church,  then  there  can  be  no 
world  in  that  nation;  all  is  church.  Had  Peter  Ed- 
vvards  considered  the  phrase  used  by  Mr.  Booth,  he 
would  have  passed  over  the  passage  without  any  re- 
marks; but  his  ignorance  would  not  permit  him; 
therefore  he  said  in  the  same  page,  that  Mr.  Booth 
"  had  confounded  the  church  and  state;  the  one 
being  a  kingdom  of  this  world,  the  other  the  king- 
dom of  Christ."  If  Peter  is  disposed  to  call  the  un- 
godly Jews,  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  it  will  be  attend- 
ed with  this  disadvantage:  it  will  represent  John  the 
Baptist  proclaiming  nonsense,  when  he  said  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand.  Matt.  iii.  2.    Here 

*  Candid  Reasons,  pag'e  131. 


CANDID  ^REASONS  EXAMINED.  41 

Peter  may  consult  his  own  lexicon,  and  if  his  is  not 
different  from  all  others,  he  will  find  that  the  phrase, 
**  Is  at  hand,"  in  Greek,  means  approach.  Now  if 
the  Jewish  economy  could  be  called  the  kingdom  of 
Christ,  how  could  John  say  that  now  it  approached 
or  drew  nigh?  The  apostles  were  commanded  to  say, 
*'  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  Matt.  x.  7. 
The  seventy  disciples  were  commanded  to  say, 
*'  The  kingdom  of  God  is  come  nigh  unto  you." 
Luke  X.  9.  If  we  were  to  understand  the  phrase,  the 
kingdom  of  God,  as  Peter  explains  it,  we  must  read 
it,  the  church  is  come  nigh  unto  you,  implying  that 
it  did  not  exist  before.  But  I  believe,  as  I  shall  make 
appear  hereafter,  that  by  these  phrases  is  meant  the 
gospel  dispensation,  and  Christ's  spiritual  reign 
in  it. 

Peter  Edwards  finds  every  thing  about  his  im- 
aginary church  rather  inveloped  in  darkness,  there- 
fore he  is  obliged  to  descend  from  his  positive  tone, 
to  humbly  acknowledge  "  all  we  know  about  the 
church  is,  that  its  members  consisted  of  adults  and 
infants,  who  were  initiated  by  the  same  rite;  that  sac- 
rifices were  ofiered;  and,  it  is  probable,  that  the  father 
of  the  family,  or  some  respectable  person,  did  offici- 
ate in  their  assemblies  as  a  priest.  Here  is  a  congre- 
gational church,  a  simple  worship,  and  some  credit- 
able officiating  priest."*  Pray  where  did  this  church 
exist?  w^hen  did  it  begin?  Not  one  woi'd  is  to  be 
found  about  it  in  Genesis,  nor  any  otlier  part,  oi^ 

*  Carrdrd  Reasons,  p.  37 

G 


42  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

scripture.  It  was  made  by  paedorantists  and  existed 
only  in  cloudy  heads.  Who  was  the  first  officiating 
priest?  Abraham  is  never  called  a  priest.  Before  his 
circumcision,  he  sacrificed;   and  after  it,  he  did  the 
same;  and  so  did  all  godly  men  before  and  after  the 
flood.  In  those  days  every  man  was  his  own  priest. 
Where  shall  we  find  their  assemblies?   Not  one  is 
mentioned  in  the  scriptures.   Can  such  ravings  be 
called  Candid  Reasons?  If  we  pursue  the  subject  we 
shall  find  Isaac  and  Jacob  sacrificing,  but  nothing  else. 
I  will  consider  the  succeednig  generations,  to  find 
this  officiating  priest  and  congregational  church;  and 
we  Avill  find  it  a  vain  fancy  and  nothing  else.  Shall 
we  find  piety  among  Jacob's  sons,  excepting  Joseph? 
Not  one  word  can  be  said  in  their  favour.  Reuben,  the 
incestuous  villain,  defiled  his  father's  concubine.  Gen. 
XXXV.  22.  and  when  Israel  knew  it,  there  was  no- 
thing done  in  way  of  dicipline  to  punish  a  flagitious 
\vretch.  A  fine  church,  a  church  without  discipline.  I 
suppose  Peter  will  not  admit  him  to  be  an  officiating 
priest.    And  what  can  be  said  of  the  rest  of  Jacob's 
children,  who  made  their  father  believe  a  lie  about 
Joseph?  And  when  they  saw  the  deep  sorro^v  and  an- 
guish of  soul,  which  afflicted  their  father  on  the  sub- 
ject, not  one  of  them  had  virtue  or  goodness  enough 
to  undeceive  him.  Their  characters  badly  agree  with 
officiating  priests. 

We  will  now  follow  them  into  Egypt,  where 
they  became  idolaters,  and  worshipped  the  gods  oi" 
Egypt.  Josh.  xxiv.  14.  There  they  became  so  igno- 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  43 

rant  and  such  strangers  to  divine  worship,  that  they 
had  even  forgotten  his  name;  therefore  when  Moses 
was  ordered  by  God  to  go  into  Egypt,  he  said,  when 
he  would  come  to  the  childi'en  of  Israel  and  say  unto 
them,  "  The  God  of  your  fathers  hath  sent  me  unto 
you;  and  they  shall  say  to  me,  what  is  his  name?  what 
shall  I  say  unto  them?"  Exod.  iii.  13.  Where  now 
are  the  creditable  priests?  So  innnersed  in  Egyptian 
idolatry,  not  one  of  them  knew  even  the  name  of  the 
object  of  worship.  Fie  for  shame!  can  any  man  of 
conscience  call  this  the  church  of  God?  He  that  is 
capable  of  doing  this,  can,   \vith  equal  ease,  call 
light,  darkness,  and  good  for  evil.  I  have  no  doubt,, 
but  even  then,  God  had  reserved  witnesses  among 
them;  but   one  reason    why  I  have   pursued  this 
method  is,  to  demonstrate  that  when  God  promised 
to  be  a  God  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  no  spiritual 
blessings  were  included  to  all  his  natural  seed.   No- 
thing but  temporalities  were  included  in  the  promise 
literally.  Wlien  the  promise  extends  farther,  it  must 
be  considered  spiritually;  and  in  this  sense,  it  is  not 
denied  by  the  baptists.    God  never  called  them  the 
church  of  Israel,  but  the  children  of  Israel.  Even  the 
word  'Zwoiycoyyi^  that  is  congregation,  was  never  ap- 
plied to  them  before  they  came  into  the  wilderness< 
Now  we  ai*e  got  into  the  wilderness,  let  us  examine 
their  character  and  conduct,  and  we  will  find  them 
a  wicked,  hardhearted  and  rebellious  generation. 
Moses,  the  servant  of  God,  had  not  been  more  than 
forty  days  from  them,  before  the  very  leader  of  them 


44  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

made  a  golden  calf,  and  sacrificed  to  it.  Exod. 
Xxxii.  And  why  a  calf?  An  ox  was  the  idol  of 
Egypt;  and  no  doubt,  they  were  well  acquainted 
with  the  idolatry  of  Egypt;  yes,  so  long  that  they  lost 
the  name  of  the  God  who  ought  to  have  been  wor- 
shipped. This  is  a  very  bad  set-out  for  this  officiat- 
ing priest.  Not  a  few  lives  were  lost  on  this  occa- 
sion: and  whoever  will  read  tlie  travels  of  the  Chil- 
dren of  Israel  in  the  wilderness,  will  find  them  to 
be  generally  a  hardhearted,  unbelieving  and  rebel- 
lious generation  in  general;  so  bad  that  the  earth 
swallowed  up  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  and  all 
their  company,  as  unworthy  to  live  on  earth,  or  die 
the  common  death  of  man.  And  what  shall  I  say 
more  to  prove  that  God  never  called  them  a  church, 
nor  treated  them  as  such?  Peter  Edwards  tells  us 
often,  that  they  were  initiated  into  this  church  by 
circumcision,  fee.  If  this  was  the  way  they  became 
members,  not  more  than  one  half  of  the  nation  be- 
longed to  it,  for  the  single  reason  they  were  females. 
And  after  400  years,  the  church  had  increased  only 
one  person.  Abraham  was  the  first;  and  when  they 
came  to  possess  the  land  of  Canaan,  the  church  con- 
sisted of  Caleb  and  Joshua,  and  no  more;  for  none 
were  circumcised  but  them.  If  time  would  permit, 
I  would  have  traced  the  subject  through  all  the  suc- 
ceeding generations  to  the  birth  of  Christ;  and  if 
whoremongers,  idolaters,  adulterers  and  sodomites 
were  a  church  of  God,  he  had  one  with  a  witness. 
I  must  not  be  understood,  diat  in  all  these  genera-. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  45 

hons,  God  had  none  called  to  be  saints,  which  is  the 
meaning  of  the  word  ^KxK-^ffKH  or  Church.  But  they 
were  not  formed  into  a  church.  God  had  his  people 
in  all  ages;  but  they  were  not  a  church  formally.  I 
have  already  touched  on  the  only  text,  in  the  New 
Testament,   where  the  word  Church  is  used,  with 
reference  to  the  children  of  Israel.    Acts  vii.   38. 
*'  This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church,  in  the  wilder- 
ness, with  the  angel  which  spake  to  him  in  the  mount 
Sina,  aiid  with  our  fathers;  who  received  the  lively 
oracles  to  give  unto  us."    The  grammatical  con- 
struction of  these  words  obliges  us  to  make  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  church,  and  our  fathers.  This 
will  appear  if  we  leave  out  the  middle  clause,  and 
read  the  words  thus,  viz.   "  This  is  he  that  was  in 
the  church  in  the  wilderness,  and  with  our  fathers." 
By  the  church  is  meant,  them  who   were   called 
to  be  saints;  and  by  our  fathers,  the  rest  of  the  na- 
tion; for  Moses  acted  as  a  temporal  mediator  be- 
tween God  and  the  Israelites,  except  in  such  cases 
as  the  mind  of  God  was  otherwise,  as  in  the  case  of 
Korah,  Dathan  and  Abiram,  who  were  swallowed 
up  by  the  earth.  If  we  admit  that  God  had  a  church 
materially,  but  not  formally,  in  all  ages  of  the  world, 
before  the  flood  as  well  as  after,  then  all  the  diffi- 
culty vanishes  immediately.  To  the  honour  of  Mr. 
Mason  this  is  granted  by  him,  wliich  is  a  demon- 
, ,  stration  that  he  has  thought  more  on  the  subject, 
than,  what  is  common  among  divines. 

We  w-ould  be  under  no  difficulties  on  tliis  sub- 


46  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

ject,  was  it  not  for  custom  aixl  education.  We  hav£ 
from  our  infancy  heard  the  word  Church  misap- 
plied; hence  the  nonsense  of  church  of  Rome,  church 
of  England,  church  of  Scotland,  has  become  fami- 
liar to  us;  but  Dr.  Campbell  has  made  appear  that 
the  scripture  never  uses  the  word  in  that  sense;  and 
it  IS  as  void  of  sense  to  talk  about  the  Jewish  church, 
but  custom  has  made  it  familiar.  Dr.  George  Camp- 
bell has  explained  the  word  l.KKAyi<rioc>  translated 
church,  so  unansvverably,  that  to  any  man  who 
wishes  information  on  the  subject,  I  would  recom- 
mend his  lectures  as  the  best  that  I  ever  saw.  It  is 
true  that  some  superstitious  bigots  will  be  very 
much  displeased  with  him,  because  he  has  told  the 
truth,  and  they  are  unable  to  refute  him;  and  I  would 
have  transcribed  many  passages  from  him,  but  it 
would  have  swelled  my  pampiilet  too  much.* 

In  the  first  manuscript  of  this  pamphlet,  I  con- 
sidered the  history  of  the  Jews,  from  the  days  of 
Joshua  to  the  birth  of  Christ,  as  far  as  recorded  in 
the  holy  scriptures;  and  notwithstanding  that  this 
history  afforded  unanswerable  arguments  against 
calling  them  a  church,  I  found  my  pamphlet  so  large 
that  I  have  been  obliged  to  curtail  it  very  much,  or 

*  Eccl.  Lee.  p.  Philad.  Ed.  "  We  speak  now,  indeed,  of  the 
Gallatian  church,  the  Greek  church,  the  church  of  England  and  of  Scot- 
land, as  of  societies  independent  and  complete  in  themselves."  Such  a 
phraseology  was  never  adopted  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  They  did  not 
s'ay,  the  church  of  Asia,  or  the  church  of  Macedonia,  or  the  church  of 
Achaia;  but  the  churches  of  God  in  Asia,  ?4C.  Tlic  plural  number  is  i^i- 
variably  used. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.      47 

it  could  not  be  so  generally  circulated.  Let  the 
reader  attend  to  the  history,  and  if  he  is  not  blinded 
by  education,  he  will  be  astonislied  that  ever  such  a 
nation  could  be  called  a  church.  Indeed  the  term  is 
perfect  nonsense,  when  it  is  applied  to  any  nation, 
consisting  of  men,  women  and  children,  or  the  word 
l.AK\t](ri»  has  no  meaning;  but  it  means  them  who 
are  called  by  grace. 

I  come  now  to  the  New  Testament;  and  the  first 
thing  which  I  shall  consider,  are  the  a<3dresses  of 
Christ  to  the  Jews,  by  which  it  will  appear  very 
plain,  he  did  not  consider  them  as  the  church  of 
God.  But  before  I  proceed,  I  must  premise  that 
there  is  a  distinction  to  be  observed,  viz.  The 
church  is  never  called  the  world;  nor  is  the  world, 
ever  called  the  church.  The  system,  that  annihilates 
the  world  and  transforms  it  into  church,  cannot  be 
of  God;  but  must  be  a  branch  of  antichrist.  Ac- 
cording to  the  psedorantists'  system,  there  was  no 
world  among  the  Jews. 

2.  The  Jews  were  as  good  and  religious,  when 
John  began  to  preach  repentance  to  them,  as  they 
were  in  preceding  ages,  if  not  much  better.  After 
the  return  from  the  Babylonish  captivity,  the  Levites 
were  to  read  the  law  and  give  the  sense  to  the  peo- 
ple, and  cause  them  to  understand  the  reading.  Neh. 
viii.  8.  This  is  supposed  to  be  445  years  before 
the  birth  of  Christ.  Malachi  is  supposed  to  have 
finished  his  prophecies  about  48  years  afterwards; 
which  finished  the  Old  Testament,  From  that  time 


48  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

to  the  birth  of  Christ,  which  it  is  supposed  was  397 
years,  the  Jews,  for  ought  we  know,  lived  as  well  as 
common,  which  was  never  very  well.  Some  time 
after  their  return,  synagogues  were  erected,  in  which 
the  law  and  the  prophets  were  read  every  sabbath, 
which  continued  to  be  the  practice  in  the  time  Clirist 
was  on  earth.  When  Christ  began  his  ministry,  the 
Jews  were  divided  into  two  classes:  one  was  called 
Pharisees,  the  other  Sadducees.  The  Sadducees 
were  Epiririans,  believing  in  no  future  state  of  ex- 
istence, angel  or  spirit.  What  kind  of  religion  they 
had,  the  reader  may  guess;  but  one  thing  is  very 
evident,  it  had  no  reference  to  eternity,  which  proves 
a  very  important  point  on  this  subject,  viz.  that  if 
the  Jews  could  be  called  a  church,  it  required  no 
mental  or  religious  qualifications  to  become  a  mem- 
ber, and  remain  so;  and  this  is  perfectly  consonant 
with  the  pasdorantists'  system.  Among  the  Jews 
cutting  off  the  prepuce  of  a  child  made  him  a  com- 
plete member;  and  although  afterwards,  he  declared 
that  he  neither  believed  that  there  was  either  heaven 
or  hell,  he  remained  still  a  member.  Is  this  the  best 
church  in  the  world?  But  the  truth  is,  that  circum- 
cision was  only  a  mark  that  the  person  descended  of 
Abraham,  and  belonged  to  the  Jewish  nation.  The 
word  INIember  is  not  used  in  all  the  Old  Testament. 
This  term  has  been  introduced  to  support  infant 
membership. 

The  other  sect  among  the  Jews,  were  called  Pha- 
risees, who  at  first,  it  is  probable,  were  the  most  rcr 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  4^ 

iigious  people  among  the  Jews;  but  when  Christ 
came,  they  were  a  superstitious  set  of  hypocrites, 
who  had  made  void  the  commands  of  God  by  their 
traditions,  and  were  the  most  spiteful  enemies 
which  Christ  had,  and  finally  by  wicked  hands  cru- 
cified him.- 

We  will  consider,  first,  how  he  addressed  the 
scribes  and  pharisees,  who  were  the  leaders  of  the 
Jews.  Now  if  Christ  addi'essed  them  in  language 
quite  contrary  to  the  language  used  when  addres- 
sing his  church,  then  it  must  follow  that  he  did  not 
consider  them  the  church  of  God.  He  charged  them 
with  making  the  command  of  God  of  none  efiect  by 
then'  traditions  of  men.  Mark  vii.  8,  9.  He  calls  them 
hypocrites  eight  times  in  one  chapter.  Matt,  xxiii. 
He  calls  them  in  the  same  chapter  five  times  blind 
guides.  He  calls  them  serpents,  a  generation  of  vi- 
pers, v/ith  the  severe  interrogative  *'  How  can  ye 
escape  the  damnation  of  hell?"  Matt,  xxiii.  33.  He 
pronounces  a  wo  against  them  eight  times  in  the 
same  chapter.  Is  this  the  language  which  he  uses 
when  he  addresses  his  church?  The  very  reverse,  as 
will  appear.  He  also  calls  them  an  evil  and  an  adulter- 
ous generation.  Matt.  ix.  39.  He  told  them  plainly, 
they  were  of  the  devil  their  father.  John  viii.  44, 
He  considered  them  under  the  character  of  the  world, 
the  contrast  of  his  church.  In  addressing  his  disci- 
ples, he  says,  "  If  the  world  hate  you,  ye  know  that 
it  hated  me  before  it  hated  you.  If  3"e  were  of  the 
world,  the  world  would  lovo  his  own;  but  becnuse 


50  CANDID  REASOlSiS  EXAMINED. 

ye  are  not  of  the  world;  but  I  have  chosen  you  out 
of  the  world,  therefore  the  world  hateth  you."  John 
XV.  18,  19.  Can  any  thing  be  plainer  than  that 
Christ  considered  the  Jews  in  the  common  state  of 
man,  without  any  relation  to  him?  Only  observe  the 
manner  in  which  he  addresses  the  members  of  his 
church  at  ail  times:  He  says  they  were  not  blind 
as  the  world  is.  "  Blessed  are  your  eyes,  for  they 
see;  and  your  ears,  for  they  hear."  Matt.  xiii.  16. 
He  calls  them  the  salt  of  the  earth,  the  light  of  the 
world.  And  to  crown  all  he  said,  "  My  sheep  hear 
my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and  they  follow  me; 
and  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life;  and  they  shall 
never  perish,  neither  shall  any  pluck  them  out  of  my 
hand."  John  x.  27,  28.  Can  any  man  in  his  senses 
read  Christ's  addresses  to  the  scribes  and  pharisees, 
and  believe  that  he  considered  them  as  members  of 
his  church,  the  church  of  God,  and  the  best  church 
in  the  world?  No,  there  is  not  a  man  on  earth  can 
believe  such  jargon. 

Now  if  circumcision  constituted  membership, 
they  must  be  considered  all  as  members.  That  cir- 
cumcision constituted  membership,  is  the  faith  of 
all  pajdorantists,  with  whom  I  have  been  acquainted. 
From  what  has  been  said,  the  conclusion  is  irre- 
fragable, that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  con- 
stituted no  church  formally;  and  that  the  Jews  ne- 
ver  called  themselves  so;  nor  could  such  materials 
bear  the  name  with  any  propriety  of  language.  If 
they  were  a'church  before  the  gospel  dispensation. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  5i 

they  are  one  to  this  very  day.  For  if  circumcision  ini- 
tiated them  into  membership,  they  still  continue  the 
rite,  and  must  be  a  church  to  the  end  of  time,  if 
they  perform  the  operation;  and  this  will  forever 
continue  their  membership  according  to  Peter  Ed- 
wards's system.  What  is  that  thing,  which  is  meant 
by  the  church,  or  EK>cA>j(ria?  The  Greeks  meant  by 
it  an  assembly  called  together.*  The  Jews  may  have 
used  the  Hebrew  words  Cahal  and  gheda;  but  they 
could  mean  nothing  more  than  the  Greeks  did  by 
ExjtAjjo-iaf,  which  was  an  assembly  called  together. 
But  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  have  the  same  idea 
of  the  word,  as  we  have  under  the  gospel  dispensa- 
tion;  for  no  such  body  did  then  exist.  The  Jews 
were  so  far  from  being  saints,  that  many  of  them 
were  gross  idolaters,  adulterers,  fornicators,  and 
even  sodomites.  To  call  such  materials  a  church  of 
God,  or  of  Christ,  is  as  great  an  insult  on  him,  as  to 
spit  in  his  face,  as  the  soldiers  did  in  the  days  erf  his 
humiliation. 

Peter  Edwards's  killing  argument  is,  that  chil- 
dren were  once,  by  God's  appointment,  members 
of  the  church;  and  they  have  never  been  cast  out 
either  by  God  or  man.f  This  argument  has  no  force, 
if  the  Jewish  nation  were  never  called  a  church, 
which  is  the  system  that  I  espouse;  but  in  any  point 
of  view,  this  argument  is  false.  If  by  children,  we 
are  to  understand  the  descendents  of  Abraham,  they 

*  Archaeo.  Atticje,  lib.  3.  cap.  2.  wx-itten  by  Tliomas  Godwin»  B.  D 
f  Candid  Reasons,  p.  fj. 


S2  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

were  not  all  included  in  that  covenant.  For  the  chil- 
dren of  Ishmael,  and  the  sons  of  Keturah  with  Esau, 
were  excluded.  At  best  only  the  males  were  in  this 
Cycloptic  thing  called  a  church;  and  perhaps  that 
was  not  one  half  of  the  nation.  A  bad  cause  will 
force  men  to  use  shameful  and  deceitful  argu- 
ments! 

Peter  Edwards  pursues  his  subject  by  quoting 
Matt.  xi.  43.  "  Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  the  king- 
dom of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you,  and  given  to  a 
nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof,"  Now  what 
is  this  to  the  purpose?  There  is  no  mention  made  of 
infant  membership.  That  is  true,  but  every  thing  is 
to  be  proved  by  inference:  that's  the  thing  that  can 
do  wonders,  which  were  never  contemplated  in  the 
scriptures.  Therefore  Peter  tells  us  "  The  plain 
meaning  of  this  passage,  is,  that  as  in  time  past,  the 
church  of  God,  which  is  his  kingdom,  was  limited 
to  Judea,  so  in  the  future,  he  would  have  a  church 
in  the  Gentile  world.  The  taking  the  kingdom  of 
God  from  the  Jews,  and  giving  it  to  the  Gentiles  de- 
notes, 1.  The  ceasing  of  a  regular  church  state 
among  the  Jews,"  &.c.  I  know  not  in  what  part  of 
scripture,  Peter  can  find  the  church  called  the  king- 
dom of  God.  If  he  has  found  it  in  the  talmud  or 
koran,  it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  It  is  not  meant 
in  Matt.  xxi.  43.  for  in  this  passage  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation is  meant,  as  will  appear  by  considering 
the  plxrase.  The  kingdom  of  God  and  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  are  used  to  the  same  purpose;  and  either 


y 


CANDIP  REASONS  EXAMINED.  53 

means  a  state  of  glory  hereafter,  or  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation on  earth.  A  few  passages  of  scripture  will 
settle  this  point.  When  John  made  his  appearance, 
he  said,  "  Repent,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at 
hand."  Matt.  iii.  2.  In  the  same  sense  it  is  used, 
Matt.  xii.  28.  "  But  if  I  cast  out  devils  by  the  Spi- 
rit of  God,  then  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come  unco 
you."  And  what  was  come  unto  them?  The  dispen- 
sation of  the  gospel,  which  is  the  power  of  God, 
unto  every  one  that  belie^'^eth;  for  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  not  meat  and  drink  but  righteousness  and 
peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  When  Christ 
sent  his  seventy  disciples  to  preach,  he  commanded 
them  to  say,  "  The  kingdom  of  God  is  come  nigh 
unto  you."  Luke  x.  9.  What  was  come  nigh  unto 
them?  The  gospel  dispensation.  Our  Lord  tells  us, 
'^'  that  it  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye 
of  a  needle,  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God."  Matt.  xix.  24.  In  this  p^issage 
it  must  mean  a  state  of  glory,  and  cannot  mean  the 
church  on  earth;  for  matters  of  fact  demonstrate  that 
rich  men  gain  admittance  into  the  church  rather  ea- 
sier than  the  poor.  In  a  large  sense  the  whole 
world  is  called  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Matt.  xiii. 
24.  over  which  Christ  reigns;  for  all  power  in  hea- 
^  en  and  earth  is  delivered  into  his  hand;  and  he  must 
reign  till  all  his  enemies  are  put  under  his  feet.  In 
this  sense,  we  are  to  understand  the  phrase  in  the 
parable  of  the  tares.  It  is  quite  preposterous  to  un- 
derstand this  parable  as  a  picture  of  Christ's  church, 


54      CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED, 

because  that  is  never  called  the  world.  This  point 
is  decided  by  him  who  was  never  mistaken.  And 
he  says,  "  The  field  is  the  world."  Mark  that, 
not  the  church.  "  The  good  seed  is  the  children  of 
the  kingdom,  but  the  tares  are  the  children  of  the 
wicked  one."  Matt.  xiii.  38.  Both  must  grow  to- 
gether till  Christ  comes;  and  then  he  will  receive  his 
seed  home  to  himself.  It  must  excite  pity,  to  see  a 
learned  gentleman  apply  this  passage  to  the  church 
of  Christ;  whereas  it  plainly  refers  to  his  general 
government  of  the  whole  world,  and  is  descriptive 
of  the  state  of  matters  under  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation. 

From  my  remarks,  it  plainly  follows,  that  the 
gospel  dispensation  is  that  which  was  taken  from  the 
Jews  and  given  unto  the  Gentiles;  but  the  name 
Jew  did  not  become  extinct  by  the  Gentiles  becom- 
ing the  most  numerous,  as  Peter  has  falsely  asserted; 
for  at  an  early  period  of  Christianity  the  disciples 
were  called  christians  at  Antioch.  This  is  supposed 
to  have  taken  place,  A.  D.  42.  and  at  that  time, 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  Gentiles  were  the  most 
numerous;  for  ecclesiastical  history  proves  that  the 
Jews  were  numerous  for  a  century,  and  became 
very  troublesome  to  the  churches  by  their  attach- 
ment to  the  Jewish  customs,  and  in  particular  their 
attachment  to  circumcision.  For  the  dream,  that  bap- 
tism came  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  was  not 
known  at  that  time.  Under  the  gospel  dispensation, 
God  concluded  ail  under  sin.    If  they  were  circum- 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  55 

cised,  they  were  not  the  better;  if  they  were  not, 
they  were  nothing  worse. 

We  will  follow  Peter  Edwards  to  another  me- 
taphorical text.  Pasdorantists  are  very  fond  of  meta- 
phors.  Perhaps  the  reason  is,  there  is  not  one  text 
that  will  establish  their  childish  infant  membershipj 
but  metaphors  are  like  a  nose  of  wax;  it  may  be,  by 
art,  fitted  to  either  side.  Men  make  them  say  what  best 
suits  their  system,  be  it  what  it  may.  On  Rom.  xi, 
23,  24.  Peter  Edwards  expatiates,  and  says,  "  The 
olive  tree  is  to  denote  a  visible  church  state."* 
I  answer,  the  word,  visible,  when  applied  to  and  con- 
nected with  church  is  nonsense;  for  what  is  visible 
can  be  seen  by  all  who  have  eyes;  but  it  is  not  by 
aid  of  my  optics  that  I  know  a  church  or  church 
members.  I  might  see  a  thousand  people  in  one 
day  in  a  city;  but  by  this  vision,  I  know  nothing 
about  their  church  membership.  The  knowledge 
of  that  is  obtained  by  information,  not  by  sight. 
The  very  phrase  has  been  fabricated  without  sense, 
and  for  a  bad  purpose.  Christ's  church  never  was 
visible,  nor  ever  will  be.  They  are  his  church  by 
profession;  and  that  is  enough.  The  scripture  ne- 
ver  used  the  term;  but  wise  men  can  help  it  out, 
where  it  has  been  a  little  defective.  Some  men 
would  have  us  'to  believe  what  they  do  not  believe 
themselves. 

Can  any  man  believe  that  the  scriptures  contain 

*  Candid  Reasons,  page  40. 


56  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

the  credenda  and  agenda^  i.  e.  all  that  we  should 
believe  and  do,  and  the  same  still  helping  the  Holy 
Ghost,  by  men's  inventions? 

Now  I  will  proceed  to  consider  the  olive  tree'; 
but  I  do  not  agree  with  Peter  calling  it  a  visible 
church  state;  but  on  the  other  hand  the  church. 
But  w'hcit  is  meant  by  it?  I  answer  tliat  church  that 
was  iormed  at  Jerusalem  out  of  the  nation  of  the 
Jews  at  first,  and  for  that  reason  is  called  their  own 
olive  tree.  And  if  ever  the  Jews  become  christians, 
they  will  be  grafted  into  the  church,  which  Christ 
formed  at  first  out  of  Jews  at  Jerusalem;  which,  as 
it  was  at  first  composed  of  Jews  called  by  grace,  is 
called  theii'  own  olive  tree.  Into  this,  the  Gentiles, 
who  were  called  by  grace,  were  grafted  in  among 
the  Jews;  the  church  being  composed  of  believing 
Jews  and  believing  Gentiles.  This  statement  harmo- 
nizes with  the  word  used  in  the  original,  E5C}cA)j(r<(3f, 
meaning  such  as  are  called  by  grace.  In  Acts  ii.  47. 
it  is  said,  "  The  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily  such 
as  should  be  saved."  From  whence  did  he  add 
them?  From  the  Jewish  nation,  but  not  from  the 
Jewish  church;  for  no  such  thing  did  ever  exist,  as 
will  appear  by  the  remarks  which  I  have  made.  Pe- 
ter Edwards's  pert  fancy  of  the  church  being  the 
same  thing  dressed  up  in  new  clothes,  is  a  conceit 
of  his  own;  but  whether  he  took  it  from  the  koran 
or  the  talmud,  or  it  is  the  production  of  his  own 
brains,  he  has  not  told  us  plainly.  But  one  thing 
is  evident:  that  is,  that  in  a  very  cai'eful  search,  I 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  57 

could  not  find  it.  Between  the  church  of  Christ,  and 
Peter  Edwards's  imaginary  church,  there  is  a  dif- 
ference in  the  qualifications  to  become  members. 
All  under  the  Jewish  economy,  were  necessarily,  to 
descend  from  Abraham  by  natural  generation,  and 
to  be  circumcised  to  initiate  them  conxpletely  a3 
members;  but  the  church  of  Christ  at  Jerusalem 
was  established  on  another  plan;  for  faith  and  repen- 
tance were  always  required,  as  prerequisites  to  bap- 
tism. Hence  may  be  observed,  the  apostle's  address 
to  the  convinced  Jews.  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Clirist." 
This  was  not  a  singular  case,  but  the  uniform  prac- 
tice. It  is  said,  "  When  they  believed  Philip  preach- 
ing the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized  both 
men  and  women."  Acts  viii.  12.  We  see  here  both 
men  and  women,  when  they  believed,  were  bap- 
tized; but  not  a  word  about  infants  or  their  fitness 
for  baptism.  All  the  fitness  a  baby  can  have  is  to 
Ijave  a  body;  and  if  this  constitutes  fitness,  then  all 
animals  which  have  bodies  are  fit  subjects.  All  that 
has  been  said  on  this  subject  is  such  a  jargon  of 
nonsense,  that  I  did  not  think  it  worthy  of  any  re- 
marks. 

Were  v/e  to  search  the  whole  New  Testament, 
we  shall  find  none  baptized,  but  such  as  possessed 
faith  and  repentance.  This  constitutes  an  essentia] 
distinction  between  the  church  of  Christ  and  the 
Jewish  economy,  and  finally  proves  that  the  apostle 


58  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

meant  by  the  olive  tree,  the  New  Testament  church, 
which  is  the  only  thing  that,  with  any  propriety; 
can  be  called  a  church. 

The  church  at  Jerusalem  were  a  separate  body 
from  the  Jews,  called  by  grace  to  be  the  disciples  of^ 
Christ,  and  were  as  such  persecuted  by  the  Jews. 
What  a  pity  the  poor  Jews  had  no  psedorantists 
among  them,  to  let  them  know,  it  was  the  identical 
same  old  church,  which  they  had  ever  since  the  days 
of  Abraham!  But  the  Jews  had  never  heard  of  this 
jargon:  it  was  not  then  invented.  Nor  had  the 
christians  ever  heard  of  it.  Nor  was  it  invented  for 
ages  afterwards.  It  is  the  creature  of  ignorance  and 
superstition,  invented  by  christians,  who  are  become 
Judaizers,  who  wish  to  make  things  under  the  gos- 
pel dispensation  agree  with  the  peculiarities  of  the 
Jewish  nation,  who  never  called  themselves  an 
EKKKt;ffKx>  TOO  9-sov,  but  thcy  were  called  the  congrega- 
tion of  the  Lord,  i.  e.  i:vvxyuyYi  rov  kv^iov. 

Should  the  Jews  ever  be  converted,  which  seems 
probable  from  Rom.  xii.  they  will  return  to  the 
New  Testament  church,  which  was  first  formed  at 
Jerusalem,  out  of  Jews  called  to  be  saints.  And  as 
this  church  was  first  made  up  of  Jews  by  nature, 
the  returning  Jews  may  be  well  said,  to  be  grafted 
into  their  own  olive  tree.  The  inference,  that  I  would 
draw  from  the  arguments  advanced,  is,  that  Jews 
and  christians  were  distinct  bodies;  and  that  being  a 
Jew  did  not  give  any  right  to  be  received  into  the 
church  of  Christ  as  a  christian.  The  gospel  con- 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  59 

siders  all  men  in  the  same  state,  withcw.it  any  refer* 
ence  to  one  nation  more  than  another.  Hence  the 
apostle  said,  "  What  then?  are  we  better  than  they? 
He  answers,  "no, in  no  wise;  for  we  have  before  prov- 
ed both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  that  they  are  all  under  sin." 
Rom.  iii.  9.  When  Paul  wrote  to  the  Corinthian^, 
he  gave  us  the  character  of  the  apostles,  viz.  Not 
walking  in  craftiness,  nor  handling  the  word  of  God 
deceitfully.  I  suspect  in  considering  Eph.  ii.  14, 
Peter  forgot  to  imitate  the  apostles;  for  his  whole 
reasoning  carries  great  appearance  of  craft,  and  hand- 
ling .the  word  of  God  deceitfully.  The  text  speaks 
of  a  partition  between  Jews  and  Gentiles,  or  in  other 
words,  all  nations.  2,  That  this  partition  was  broken 
down  in  Paul's  time.  3.  That  the  end  in  view  was 
to  make  one  new  man  out  of  Jews  and  Gentiles; 
not  to  dress  an  old  man  in  new  clothes,  v.  15th. 
Here  I  justly  remark,  had  Peter  Edwards  wished 
to  avoid  deceit  and  craft,  he  would  have  informed 
the  reader,  what  the  partition  was  between  Jew  and 
Gentile,  which  separated  them;  but  not  one  word 
is  said  on  the  subject.  All  is  left  to  the  guess  of  the 
reader.  Such  pretended  comments  may  suit  bigots, 
who  are  like  young  robins,  that  open  their  mouths 
to  receive  any  thing,  whether  it  be  a  cherry  or  a 
cherry-stone;  but  such  designed  omissions  and  eva- 
sions will  not  be  well  received  by  such  as  wish  sin. 
cerely  to  know  the  truth. 

The  partition  wall,  between  Jew  and  Gentile, 
was  ciixumcision,  which  was  a  national  mark,  and 


QO  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

designed  to  distinguish  them  from  all  other  nations. 
It  is  well  known  with  what  contempt  the  Jews 
looked  on  all  other  nations,  calling  them  emphatically 
tfncircumcised;  and  it  was  as  natural  for  all  nations 
to  despise  the  Jews.  This  fixed  the  enmity,  together 
with  the  other  Jewish  ceremonies,  which  appears  from 
verse  15th,  where  it  is  said,  "  Having  abolished  in 
his  flesh  the  enmity^  even  the  law  of  commandments 
contained  in  ordinances;  for  to  make  in  himself  of 
twain  one  new  man,  so  making  peace."  Not  an,€ild 
man  new  dressed.  Moses  incorporated  circumci* 
sion  \nih  his  laws,  though  it  existed  from  At^ra- 
liam's  time  as  a  national  mark  of  distinction.  This, 
and  others,  were  called  carnal  ordinances  im- 
posed on  the  Jews,  till  the.  time  of  reformation.  Heb. 
ix.  10.  The  gospel  dispensation  was  the  time  of  re- 
formation. Christ  having  abolished  the  enmity,  i.  e. 
the  cause  of  it,  to  form  a  church  unto  himself  ori- 
ginally made  of  Jews;  but  the  Gentiles  afterwards 
were  joined  with  them.  The  text  says,  for  to  make 
in  himself  of  twain  one  new  man,  not  an  old  man 
dressed  up  in  new  clothes.  This  whim  originated 
in  Peter's  fruitful  imagination;  for  I  never  heard  of 
it  before.  Indeed  the  change  is  so  great,  that  very 
few  can  believe  it  to  be  the  old  man.  The  scrip- 
tures  say  the  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily  such 
as  should  be  saved.  From  whence  was  this  addition 
made?  The  answer  is  plain:  from  the  Jewish  nation, 
who  were  never  called  a  church;  for  it  is  evident, 


CANDID  REASOI>lS  EXAMINED.  Ql 

that  the  church  is  something  different  and  distinct 
from  any  thing  the  Jews  were  before. 

2.  In  Paul's  time  the  middle  wall  of  partition 
was  broken  down.  Who  broke  down  this  wall?  The 
text  says  Christ,  "  Who  hath  made  both  one,  and 
hath  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  paitition  be- 
tween us."  V.  14.  How  disingenuous  was  it  for  Peter 
Edwards  to  draw  this  conclusion,  viz.  "  That  the 
Gentiles  w^re  not  formed  into  a  new  church."*  By 
which  it  is  insinuated  that  the  baptists  held  that  senti- 
ment, or  their  system  led  to  it.  If  Peter  did  not 
know  better,  he  certainly  never  understood  the  bap- 
tists' system;  for  they  believe  that  the  gospel  church 
had  no  existence  before  that  dispensation,  and  at 
first  was  formed  out  of  the  Jewish  nation;  but  after 
the  ascension  of  Christ,  the  gospel  extended  to  all 
nations,  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews;  and  when  any  be- 
lieved, they  were  baptized,  and  afterwards  joined 
the  church,  by  their  free  choice,  and  voluntary  act. 
For  baptism  makes  none  a  member  of  the  church 
of  Christ.  It  is  a  subsequent  act.  One  thing  may  be 
remarked  in  Peter  Edwards:  he  never  pretends  to 
give  us  one  text,  to  show  us  any  example  of  bap- 
tizing children.  This  is  to  be  done  by  inference  or 
analogy;  and  why?  Because  he  knew  there  was  not 
one  text  in  the  scripture  to  support  his  practice. 
Volumes  have  been  Avritten  on  the  subject;  but  not 
H  single  text  can  be  produced  for  the  superstitious 

*  Csjidid  Reasons,  page  46, 


62  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

practice.  I  could  refute  every  argument  used  on  the 
text  under  consideration;  but  as  it  would  be  only 
wast  of  time  and  paper,  I  will  only  give  Peter  a 
scrap  of  Latin  and  pass  on.  "  Vox  et  prater ea  ni- 
hil, i.  e.  Tush!  A  voice  and  nothing  else. 

I  pass  to  make  some  remarks  on  the  texts,  which 
refer  to  children;  for  if  the  term  child,  or  children  is 
used,  the  common  class  of  pasdorantists  look  imme- 
diately for  baptism,  although  the  text  has  no  refer- 
ence to  the  subject.  Peter  produces  two  texts  out 
of  the  evangelists;  but  not  one  of  them  has  any  re- 
ference to  baptism,  neither  explicitly,  nor  implicitly; 
first,  Luke  ix.  47,  48.  *'  And  Jesus  took  a  child,  and 
set  him  by  him;  and  (when  he  had  taken  him  in  his 
arms,  Mai'k  ix.  36.)  he  said  unto  them,  whosoever 
shall  receive  this  child,  in  my  name,  receiveth  me: 
and  whosoever  shall  receive  me,  receiveth  him  that 
sent  me;  for  he  that  is  least  among  you  all,  the  same 
shall  be  great."  There  is  something  extremely  dis- 
honest and  unfair  in  Peter  Edwards,  when  he  pre- 
tends to  quote  scripture;  for  I  do  not  remember  his 
giving  a  fair  statement  of  the  subject.  His  conduct 
seems  like  to  Ananias:  he  keeps  back  part  and  pre- 
tends to  give  the  whole.  To  do  justice  and  act  ho- 
nourably, every  text,  and  the  occasion  of  its  being 
spoken,  should  be  considered.  I  will  therefore  first 
give  the  texts,  and  then  make  my  comments.  I  will 
begin  with  Mark  ix.  but  I  find  it  necessar}^  to  begin 
at  the  33d  verse  and  transcribe  five  verses.  "  And 
he  came  to  Capernaum;  and  being  in  the  house,  he 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  63 

asked  them,  what  was  it  that  ye  disputed  among 
yourselves  by  the  way?  But  they  held  their  peace; 
for  by  the  way  they  had  disputed  among  themselves, 
who  should  be  the  greatest.  And  he  sat  down  and 
called  the  twelve,  and  saith  unto  them,  if  any  man 
desire  to  be  first,  the  same  shall  be  last  of  all,  and 
servant  of  all.  And  he  took  a  child,  and  set  him  in 
the  midst  of  them;  and  when  he  had  taken  him  in 
his  arms,  he  said  unto  them,  whosoever  shall  receive 
one  of  such  children  in  my  name,  receiveth  me;  and 
whosoever  shall  receive  me,  receiveth  not  me,  but 
him  that  sent  me."  This  is  Mark's  account  of  the 
subject. 

The  statement  of  Luke  is  very  similar.  Luke  ix. 
46,  47,  48.  "  Then  there  arose  a  reasoning  among 
them,  which  of  them  should  be  the  greatest.  And 
Jesus  perceiving  the  thought  of  their  heart,  took  a 
child  and  set  him  by  him,  and  said  unto  them,  who- 
soever shall  receive  this  child  in  my  name,  receiv- 
eth me;  and  whosoever  shall  receive  me,  receiveth 
him  that  sent  me;  for  he  that  is  least  among  you  all, 
the  same  shall  be  great." 

Let  us  now  see  what  the  evangelist  Matthew 
says  on  the  subject.  We  will  first  transcribe  six 
verses,  beginning  at  chap,  xviii.  and  first  verse. 
"  At  the  same  time  came  the  disciples  unto  Jesus, 
saying,  who  is  the  gi'eatest  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven?  And  Jesus  called  a  little  child  unto  him, 
and  set  him  in  the  midst  of  them,  and  said,  verily 
I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  be  converted,  and  become 


64-  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.   Whosoever  therefore  shall  humble  him- 
self as  this  little  child,  the  same  is  greatest  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.    And  whoso  shall  receive  one 
such  little  child  in  my  name,  receiveth  me.  And 
whoso  shall  offend  one  of  these  little  ones,  which  be- 
lieve in  me,  it  were  better  for  him  that  a  millstone 
were  hanged  about   his   neck,  and   that   he   were 
drowned  in  the  depth  of  the  sea."  I  will  give  the 
subject  fair  play;  therefore  I  will  transcribe  Matt, 
xix.  13,  14,  15.    "  And  there  were  brought  unto 
him  little  children,  that  he  should  put  his  hands  on 
them  and  pray;  and  the  disciples  rebuked  them. 
But  Jesus  said,    suffer  little  children,    and   forbid 
them  not  to  come  unto  me,  for  of  such  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  And  he  laid  his  hands  on  them  and 
departed."  Two  passages  yet  remain  in  the  evan- 
gelists; and  I  think  that  will  finish  the  subject  of 
children,  viz.  Mark  x.  13,  14,  15,  16.  "  And  they 
brought  young  children  to  him,  that  he  should  touch 
them;  and  his  disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought 
them;  but  when  Jesus  saw  it,  he  was  much  dis- 
pleased, and  said  unto  them,   suffer  the  little  chil- 
dren to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not;  for  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
v/hosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as 
a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein.  And  he  took 
them  up  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them  and 
blessed  them."  The  last  passage  is  in  Luke  xviii. 
15,  16,  17.  "  And  they  brought  unto  him  also  in- 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  65 

faiits,  that  he  would  touch  them;  but  when  his  dis- 
ciples saw  it,  they  rebuked  them.  But  Jesus  called 
them  unto  him,  and  said,  suffer  little  children  to 
come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not;  for  of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  who- 
soever shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a 
little  child,  shall  in  no  wise  enter  therein." 

My  reason  for  transcribing  all  these  passages 
fully,  was  because  by  this  statement,  it  will  appear 
the  design  of  Clirist  was  to  check  the  aspiring  dis- 
position of  his  disciples;  for  they  had  been  disputing 
who  should  be  the  greatest.  Matt,  xviii.  1.  "  Who  is 
the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  oi  heaven?"  Mark  ix. 
33, 34.  "  By  the  way  they  had  been  disputing  among 
themselves,  who  should  be  the  .greatest."  Luke  ix. 
46.  "  Then  there  arose  a  reasoning  among  them, 
which  of  them  should  be  the  greatest."  There  were 
no  papists  among  Christ's  disciples,  or  they  would 
all  have  pointedto  Peter,  and  very  submissively  kissed 
his  toe.  The  three  evangelists  state  the  occasion  of 
Christ's  remarks  and  reference  to  .  hildren.  It  was 
to  check  their  pride  and  ambition.  And  could  this 
end  be  answered  by  telling  them  that  infants  were 
church  members?  No  man  can  refrain  from  smiling 
at  such  nonsense.  Is  this  the  unanswerable  casuist 
about  infant  membership?  Peter  Edwards;  in  his 
Candid  Reasons,  means  by  ciie  kingdoii>  of  God,  the 
church;*  and  in  these  passages  under  consideration > 

*  Candid  Rea«^on?.  va^c  3S. 


^6  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

he  means  the  same.  I  have  refuted  this  sentiment 
already,  in  my  remarks  on  his  explanation  of  Mat- 
thew xxi.  43.  The  words  are,  "  Therefore  say  I  unto 
you,  the  kingdom  of  Giod  shall  be  taken  from  you, 
and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits 
thereof*"  I  would  refer  the  reader  to  what  is  said 
there,  only  that  the  most  of  readers  are  forgetful,  and 
cannot  retain  the  subject,  except  it  is  immediately 
before  their  eyes.  I  hope  this  will  be  accepted  as  an 
apology  for  the  many  tautologies  in  this  pamphlet. 

The  evangelist  Matthew  uses  the  phrase,  "  The 
kingdom  of  heaven."  Mark  uses  "  the  kingdom  of 
God."  I  believe  it  is  generally  agreed,  they  mean  the 
same  thing.  We  will  explain  what  is  meant  by  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  or  the  kin'gdom,  and  then  con- 
sider the  necessary  qualifications  to  enter  into  that 
kingdom.  I  cannot  find  that  either  of  the  evange- 
lists, strictly  speaking,  means  the  church.  These 
phrases  in  the  evangelists  generally  mean  the  gospel 
dispensation,  or  the  gospel  itself,  or  the  state  of 
things  under  the  gospel  dispensation.  Sometimes 
the  phrase  means  the  dominion  of  Christ  over  the 
whole  world;  as,  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  is  de- 
livered in  his  hand  by  the  Father;  but  generally  it 
means  a  state  of  grace  or  a  state  of  glory.  Peter 
Edwards,  in  his  pamphlet,  will  have  us  understand 
by  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  of  heaven,  the  church; 
nor  do  I  remember  a  passage  in  which  it  is  used  in 
any  other  sense  by  him.  In  this,  1  conceive,  he  is 
quite  mistaken.    The  kingdonfi  of  God,  or  hea\  en, 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  57 

was  never  applied  to  the  Jewish  economy,  which,  ac- 
-cording  to  his  own  system,  affords  a  presumptive  ar- 
gument that  the  Jews  were  never  considered  as  a 
church,  formally.  The  phrase  is  peculiar  to  the 
New  Testament;  for  there  was  no  such  society  as  a 
church  before  the  gospel  day.  No  nation  can  be 
called  a  church  without  the  abuse  of  the  word. 
John  the  Baptist  is  the  first  who  used  the  phrase, 
"  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  If  Peter  Ed- 
wards is  the  Greek  scholar,  which  he  would  wish  to 
pass  for,  he  knows  what  the  Greek  word  means, 
"  Is  at  hand."  Were  we  to  take  the  words  as  Peter 
would  have  us,  then  it  means  the  church  is  at  hand. 
That  w^ould  suppose,  that  it  did  not  exist  before:  a 
sentiment  not  pleasing  to  pcedorantists.  The  plain 
and  easy  truth  is,  that  the  gospel  dispensation  was 
at  hand,  or  drew  nigh.  Perhaps  some  will  say,  Peter 
did  not  mention  this  text.  Very  true,  he  never  men- 
tions a  text  that  will  not  suit  him.  Let  us  try,  Mark 
X.  15.  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall  not 
receive  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  a  little  child,  he  shall 
not  enter  therein."  Peter's  sense  would  oblige  us 
to  understand  the  text  thus,  "  Whosoever  shall  not 
receive  the  church,  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  en- 
ter therein."  Whether  this  is  the  meaning  oy  not, 
the  reader  may  judge.  Again  we  will  try  another 
passage,  in  which  the  kingdom  of  God  is  mentioned. 
Matt.  xix.  24.  *'  It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go 
through  the  eye  of  a  needle,  than  for  a  rich  man  to 
enter  into   the   kingdom   of  God."    If  we  imdei> 


68      CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

stand  this  passage  to  mean  the  church,  they  had 
hard  work  then  to  get  into  the  church.  Sed  tempo- 
ra  mutantur,  i  e.  Times  are  changed  in  favour 
of  the  rich  of  this  world.  Let  us  hear  what  Christ 
said  to  Nicodemus  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again, 
he  camiot  see  the  kingdom  of  God,"  that  is  the  church 
of  God.  The  reader  will  be  at  no  loss,  to  know 
what  is  meant  by  the  kingdom  of  God  here;  for  it 
means  a  state  of  glory  in  heaven,  into  which  none 
can  enter  without  regeneration. 

I  will  now  consider  the  necessary  quahiications 
to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  The  evangelist 
Matthew  gives  the  qualifications  thus,  "  Except  ye 
be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall 
not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Matt,  xviii. 
3.  Our  Lord  teaches  us,  in  this  passage,  that  con- 
version is  a  necessary  qualification  for  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  in  the  sense  in  which  he  uses  the  word, 
which  demonstrates  that  he  means  a  state  of  glory, 
into  which  none  can  be  admitted  without  regenera- 
tion. In  Luke  we  have  the  qualifications  in  these 
words,  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall  not 
receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  shall 
in  no  wise  enter  therein."  Peter  Edwards  did  not 
know  what  was  meant  by  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
and  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  he  designedly  perverted 
the  meaning  to  support  his  fallacious  system.  We 
shall  see  further  the  qualifications,  by  observing 
what  he  has  said  on  the  Greek  tuv  tojoutwv.*    Peter 

*  Candid  Reasons,  page  55. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  69 

Edwards  asserted,  "  That  this  construction  had  no- 
thing to  support  it."  What!  nothing  to  support  it? 
I  will  make  appear  that  it  hath  both  scripture  and 
common  sense  to  support  it;  but  indeed  he  treats 
both  as  if  they  were  nothing.  What  must  we  then 
depend  on?  His  bold  assertion,  without  scripture  or 
sense.  I  know  not  how  far  his  word  m  England 
may  pass  as  currency;  but  with  me  it  is  no  better 
than  the  old  continental  paper  money,  in  its  last  dying- 
gasp.  The  phrase,  which  he  said,  had  nothing  to 
support  it,  was  the  meaning  which  some  baptist  had 
fixed  on  the  Greek  tuv  ioiovtwv.  The  baptists  affirmed 
that  "  Of  suchlike,"  meant  adults  of  a  child-like  dis- 
position. This  is  the  construction  which  our  Solo- 
mon says,  has  nothing  to  support  it;  but  I  will  make 
it  appear  that  it  has  both  scripture  and  common 
sense,  and  liis  construction  has  neither  to  support  it. 
In  the  first  place,  there  is  no  dispute  about  what 
is  meant  by  little  children;  for  perhaps  some  of  them 
were  a  year  or  two  old,  or  younger;  but  the  whole 
dispute  is  about  the  application  of  the  transaction 
meant  by  the  phrase  "  Of  such,  or  such  like:"  whe- 
ther it  refers  to  the  size  of  their  bodies,  or  the  qua 
lities  of  the  mind.  The  baptists  assert  the  latter. 
The  psedorants  pretend  to  believe  the  former.  Well 
let  us  try  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,"  and  ap- 
ply it  to  the  age  and  size  of  children.  Peter  Ed- 
wards tells  us  the  kingdom  of  God  means  the  church 
of  God;  then  we  must  understand  it  as  if  it  had 
been  said,  "  Of  such  is  the  church  in  toto,^''  It  wilif 


70  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

not  do  to  say  it  means  part  of  the  church;  for  it  is 
said,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God."  A  fine 
church,  which  would  require  more  nurses  than 
bishops.  If  the  church  is  composed  t?t  toto  of  in- 
fants,  then  Peter  Edwards  can  have  no  place  in  iti 
for  I  never  knew  an  infant  that  understood  Greek. 
It  is  granted  that  after  some  time,  they  can  say, 
mammy  and  daddy.  This  observation  will  make 
Peter  wince  and  try  to  avoid  the  dilemma,  and  try 
to  squeeze  in  by  quibble  a  small  amendment,  and 
say,  of  such  is  part  of  the  church.  Stop,  that  will 
not  do;  for  the  text  is,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God."  We  used  to  think  that  church  was  a  volun- 
tary assembly  formed  to  maintain  divine  worship; 
but  Peter  by  dressing  up  an  old  man  in  new  clothes, 
has  made  the  foolishest  assembly  in  the  world,  con- 
sisting of  babies.  There  never  was  such  a  society  as 
this;  what,  a  society  of  babies  literally!  Nonsense 
seems  confined  to  the  church  of  God,  where  infants 
are  supposed  to  be  the  materials.  This  account  badly 
agrees  with  Paul's  description  given  of  a  church. 
When  he  wrote  to  Timothy,  he  said,  "  But  if  I  tarry 
long,  that  thou  maycst  know  how  thou  oughtest  to 
behave  thyself  in  the  house  of  God,  which  is  the 
church  of  the  living  God,  the  pillar  and  the  ground 
of  the  truth."  1  Tim.  iii.  15.  Pray  what  ai-guments 
can  infants  bring  to  support  the  truth?  Perhaps  they 
can  say  mammy  or  daddy,  and  that  is  all.  Of  such, 
or  like  unto  these  is  the  kingdom  of  God.  Now  the 
likeness  must  refer  to  the  age  and  size  of  the  body» 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  71 

or  to  the  qualities  of  the  mind.  I  have  demonstrated 
the  impossiblity  of  the  likeness  referring  to  the  cor- 
poral size  of  an  infant;  and  I  am  rather  of  opinion 
that  Peter  Edwards  himself,  who  is  a  wonderful 
man,  will  not  attempt  to  maintain  that  meaning.  We 
are  compelled  by  scripture  and  common  sense,  to 
have  recourse  to  some  other  meaning;  and  it  ap- 
pears plainly,  that  the  likeness  did  not  consist  in  the 
age  or  size  of  the  body;  but  in  the  qualities  of  the 
soul,  viz.  unambitious,  meek  and  lowly  in  heart, 
whether  old  or  young,  I  despise  the  phrase  adult,  as 
no  way  expressive  of  the  faith  of  a  baptist;  for  we 
never  limit  baptism  to  the  age  of  a  person,  but  to 
his  qualifications,  profession  and  confession.  "  If 
thou  belie  vest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest,"  is 
our  faith  and  practice,  without  reference  to  age.  For 
with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  righteousness, 
and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto  salva- 
tion. Were  we  to  examine  every  text  where  rm 
TOJovTwv,  that  is,  "  of  such,  or  such  like"  is  used,  we 
would  find  that  it  referred  to  the  qualities  of  the 
mind,  and  not  to  the  size  of  the  body.  Mark  said, 
"  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whosoever  shall  not  receive 
the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not 
enter  therein."  Mark  x.  15.  The  gospel  is  to  be  re- 
ceived by  a  humble  mind.  The  very  same  senti- 
ment i^  inforced  by  Luke.  "  Verily  1  say  unto  you, 
whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as 
a  little  child,  shall  in  no  wise  enter  therein."  Luke 
xviii.  17,  Taking  the  passages  in  this  meaning,  and 


72  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

they  cannot  mean  any  other,  they  come  with  force 
to  reprove  the  aspiring  ambition  of  the  disciples  who 
had  been  disputing  who  should  be  the  greatest;  but 
if  we  suppose  he  told  them  that  infants  belonged  to 
the  church,  the  argument  has  in  it  no  suitableness 
to  reprove  their  ambition.  How  many  will  be  finally 
disappointed,  who  have  enjoyed  large  salaries  on 
earth,  and  lived  in  pride  and  pomp,  and  fared  sump- 
tuously every  day!  But  it  will  remain  an  eternal 
truth,  that  blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  I  fear  I  shall  tire  the  pa- 
tience of  the  reader  with  my  remarks  on  the  phrase, 
of  such^  or  such  like;  but  as  these  passages  are 
for  ever  brought  to  prove  infants'  right  to  baptism, 
though  they  have  in  fact,  no  more  reference  to  that 
subject  than  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  I  must 
make  a .  few  more  remarks,  to  make  still  plainer,  if 
plainer  can  be,  that  the  words  refer  to  the  qualities 
of  the  mind,  and  not  to  the  size  of  bodies,  or  age 
of  the  persons. 

Our  Lord  said,  in  Matt,  xviii.  3.  "  Verily 
I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  be  converted  and  be- 
come as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  heaven."  The  gate  is  strait  and  the 
way  narrow  that  leads  to  life,  and  few  there  be  that 
find  it.  We  see  children  presented  as  patterns  of 
humility,  to  the  professed  followers  of  Christ.  This 
is  evident  from  v.  4.  "  Whosoever  shall  humble  him- 
self as  diis  little  child,  the  same  is  the  greatest  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  The  man  who  has  the  greatest 


CANDID  REA^NS  EXAMINED.  73 

degree  of  humility  on  earth,  will  shine  the  brightest 
in  glory.  Our  Lord  still  illustrates  the  case  farther 
by  saying,  whoso  shall  receive  one  such,  tccciSiqv 
TOiouTov,  little  child  in  my  name,  receiveth  me.  Our 
Lord  is  speaking  nothing  about  babies  here;  but 
of  them  that  were  converted  and  became  like  them 
(To;oi/ra>v);  and  this  likeness  consisted  in  the  quali- 
ties of  their  minds,  not  in  the  size  or  age.  v.  5.  And 
in  v.  6.  he  adds,  "  Whoso  shall  offend  one  of  these 
little  ones,  which  believe  in  me,"  &c.  Here  are  the 
little  ones  to  which  Christ  improves  the  transaction; 
the  little  ones  were  his  humble  disciples,  who  believed 
in  him.  And  he  adds  in  Matt.  x.  4,2.  "  Whosoever 
sliall  give  to  drink  unto  one  of  these  little  ones,  a 
cup  of  cold  water  only,  in  the  name  of  a  disciple, 
verily  I  say  unto  you,  he  shall  in  no  wise  lose  his 
reward."  Here  it  is  evident,  that  by  little  ones  he 
means  his  humble  folio v/ers  or  disciples.  When 
Christ  mentions  receiving  little  children,  he  cannot 
mean  them  who  were  so  in  age;  but  them  w1k> 
were  of  a  child-like  disposition,  lowly  in  mind,  as 
young  converts  are.  And  this  is  evident  from  what 
Matthew  said,  when  he  recorded  the  words  of  Christ.. 
*'  But  whoso  shall  offend  one  of  these  little  ones 
which  believe  in  me,"  &c.  Matt,  xviii.  6.  Can  Peter 
Edwards  suppose  that  infants  believe  in  Christ?  If 
they  are  capable  of  exercising  the  grace  of  faith,  they 
are  capable  of  exercising  unbelief;  and  as  they  can 
profess  nothing,  how  will  Peter  come  to  the  know- 
ledge of  their  states?  I  think  it  must  be  guess-work« 

f, 


74      CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

But  perhaps  I  am  a  little  too  fast;  I  had  almost  for- 
gotten that  Peter  asserted  that  union  to  Clirist  was 
visible;  for  Visible  is  one  of  Peter's  hocus  pocus 
words.  As  the  sentiment  is  new,  I  will  transcribe 
it;  but  it  ought  not  to  have  been  printed.  The  words 
are,  "  To  receive  a  person  in  the  name  of  a  disciple 
of  Christ,  is  to  treat  him  as  one  belonging  to  Christ, 
as  one  in  visible  union  with  him."*  Peter  Edwards 
is  a  singular  man;  for  I  never  heard  before  that  union 
to  Christ  was  a  thing  visible.  The  baptists  do  not 
pretend  to  be  so  eagle-eyed  as  this.  No,  they  only 
judge  charitably  of  the  profession  made;  whether  the 
person  has  any  spiritual  union  to  Christ  or  not,  they 
leave  to  a  better  judge.  It  must  be  a  bad  cause, 
which  tempts,  in  trymg  to  support  it,  to  use  unscrip- 
tural  phi'ases,  which  being  properly  examined  ap- 
pear mere  nonsense.  The  Holy  Ghost  has  said  no- 
thing about  visible  union  to  Christ,  or  visible  church: 
these  are  the  creatures  of  men's  brains,  and  have  no 
foundation  in  the  religion  of  Christ.  These  terms 
have  been  fabricated  for  evil  purposes;  and  custom 
makes  them  familiar  without  examination;  just  as 
people  foolishly  by  custom  call  a  place  of  worship  a 
church. 

Peter  Edwards  is  no  respecter  of  persons;  for 
■when  he  thinks  it  would  help  his  system,  he  is  not 
afraid  to  charge  even  the  apostles  with  wilfully  sin- 
ning contrary  to  their  own  knovviedge.    His  charge 

*  Caaiclid  Kcaaons,  page  53'. 


CANDID  REASO^JS  EXAMINED,  75 

against  them  is  contained  expressly  in  these  words, 
viz.  "  For  in  that  they  acted  contrary  to  a  known 
principle  they  knew,  in  keeping  those,  who  belonged 
to  the  church,  from  the  church's  head."*  I  rather 
think  Peter  doth  not  expect  to  meet  with  the  apos- 
tles very  soon;  for  if  they  now  have  the  temper  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  the  quarrel  between  them  and 
Peter  would  be  very  great. 

What  a  dreadful  charge!  sinning  against  know- 
ledge; and  this  charge  remains  on  earth  recorded  by 
the  great  Peter  Edwards!  I  rather  think  something 
may  be  said  in  their  favour.  It  was  the  first  time 
that  children  had  been  brought  to  Christ  to  lay  his 
hands  on  them,  and  pray  for  them,  and  bless  tihenj^ 
It  was  a  novelty;  and  they  might  have  escaped  if 
they  had  not  fell  into  Peter  Edwards's  hands.  Be- 
sides, they- may  plead  that  they  had  never  heard  of 
baby  members  in  the  gospel  church;  and  they  could 
learn  nothing  from  the  Jewish  economy;  for  there  is 
not  even  the  phrase  membership  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, I  think,  upon  the  whole,  a  less  censure  would 
ha\'e  been  more  decent. 

To  conclude  this  subject,  the  reader  may  judge 
whether  I  have  not  unanswerably  proved,  that  in  the 
passages,  where  the  phrases,  "  of  such  or  such,"  are 
used,  they  do  not  refer  to  infants  in  age;  but  the  humble 
disciples  of  Christ  of  whatever  age  they  might  be,  of 
an  humble  mind  subjected  to  the  obedience  of  faith. 

*  /..'nndid  Reasong)  pag'e  57 ■ 


76  Candid  reasons  examined. 

I  shall  therefore  proceed  to  consider  the  next  pas-^ 
sage,  in  which  Peter  displays  his  ignorance  or  his 
craftiness  in  handling  the  word  of  God  dishonestly. 
Acts  ii,  38th  and  39th  verses  are  to  be  considered. 
One  thing  is  evident  in  the  writings  of  Peter  Ed- 
wards: he  can  find  a  meaning  for  a  text,  that  not  one 
in  a  thousand  could  have  thought  of.  The  words  are 
*'  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and 
ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the 
promise  is  to  you  and  your  children,  and  to  all  that 
are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall 
calL" 

Peter  Edwards  has  filled  ten  pages  of  his  pam- 
phlet  on  this  passage,  and  used  the  word  promise 
fifty-four  times;  but  very  craftily  avoided  giving  the 
reader  any  information  concerning  what  was  pro- 
mised.   In  that  he  handled  the  word  of  God  deceit- 
fully, and  designedly  so.    If  Peter  was  an  ignorant 
man,  such  perversion  of  scripture  might  be  excused. 
Hearing  the  word  Promise  so  often  repeated  without 
letting  the  reader  know  what  was  promised,  brought 
to  my  mind  the  papists'  prayer  to  the  lady  Mary; 
in  which  they  use  the  words,  ora  pro  nobis,  forty- 
four  times,  but  never  inform  the  good  lady  what  they 
want,  only  ora  pro  nobis.,  i.  e.  pray  for  us.  The  pro, 
mise,  the  promise  is  repeated  again  and  again;  but 
\x&  never  informs  the  reader  what  is  that  which  is 
promised.  Had  he  done  this,  the  dispute  would  have 
been  ended;  for  it  would  have  appeared  plainly  that 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  77 

infants  were  not  designed  by  the  term  children.  I 
would  request  the  reader  to  turn  back  and  read  the 
verses  over,  and  he  will  see  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
that  which  was  promised;  "  And  ye  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  promise  is  to 
you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off, 
even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 
These  words  were  used  by  the  prophet  Joel,  chap, 
ii.  V.  32.  the  very  words  of  the  apostle  referred  to, 
as  appears  by  reading  from  the  16th  to  the  22d 
verse  inclusive  of  this  chapter.  On  the  very  subject 
of  the  out-pouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  apostle 
was  speaking.  On  the  very  day  of  pentecost,  when 
the  extraordinary  gifts  of  the  Spirit  appeared.  Now, 
says  the  text,  when  this  was  noised  abroad,  the  mul- 
titude came  together,  and  were  amazed;  but  some 
said  they  were  filled  with  new  wine.  The  apostle's 
sermon  was  to  convince  them,  that  they  were  mis- 
taken about  wine;  but  on  the  other  hand,  it  was  the 
fulfilment  of  a  prophecy  recorded  in  Joel,  which  he 
repeated,  according  to  the  Septuagint.  In  this  pro- 
mise it  it  is  said,  "  I  will  pour  out  of  my  spirit  upon 
all  fleshy  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall 
prophesy."  We  cannot  suppose  that  the  prophet 
meant  by  sons  and  daughters  little  infants;  for  be- 
fore they  could  prophesy,  they  must  learn  to  speak. 
By  sons  and  daughters  in  the  text,  is  meant  what 
the  apostle  calls  your  children.  Children  are  children 
as  v/ell  when  they  are  old,  as  when  they  are  young. 
This  is  a  point  which  bears  no  dispute.;  but  men 


78  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

may  quibble  without  any  fouiKiation  for  ai-gument. 
After  several  other  things  said  by  Joel,  he  concludes 
the  promise  by  saying,  "  For  in  mount  Zion  and  in 
Jerusalem  shall  be  deliverance,  and  in  the  remnant, 
whom  the  Lord  shall  call."  The  apostle  renders  it, 
even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call. 

Let  any  man,  not  intoxicated  with  the  wiii^e  of 
the  whore  of  Babylon,  read  the  whole  promise  in 
Joel,  and  the  apostle's  reasoning  on  it,  in  the  Acts, 
second  chapter;  and  1^  must  plainly  see  that  by 
children  is  meant,  what  Joel  called,  sons  and  daugh- 
ters; and  that  the  thing  promised  was  the  Holy  Ghost 
in  his  gospel  work,  both  as  a  spirit  of  sanctification 
with  the  extraordinary  gifts,  and  as  a  Comforter. 
Under  the  latter  character  he  is  promised  to  all  be- 
lievers, and  is  made  good  to  this  very  day.  As  the 
text  has  it,  "  And  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Perhaps  it  may  be  asked,  how  did 
the  apostle  know  that  believers  should  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost?  The  answer  is  plain:  be- 
cause the  promise  is  to  you  and  your  children,  called 
in  Joel,  sons  and  daughters,  and  to  all  that  are  afar 
off;  by  which  the  Gentiles  may  be  intended.  Tlie  pro- 
mise  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  limited, 
whether  Jew  or  Gentile,  to  as  many  as  the  Lord  our 
God  shall  call;  which  is  descriptive  of  a  gospel 
church,  who  profess  to  be  called  by  grace. 

To  real  christians  the  Holy  Ghost  is  promised  in 
the  character  of  a  comforter.  John  xiv.  16,  17.  and 
xvi.  7.  13. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  79 

Sometimes  it  surprises  me,  why  this  passage  is 
brought  forward  in  this  dispute;  but  it  is  as  good  as 
any  other;  for  there  is  no  scripture  for  receiving  in- 
fants as  members  of  the  church.  The  thing  in  itself 
is  perfectly  absurd.  A  church  should  be  an  intelli- 
gent society:  it  cannot  be  composed  of  members, 
who  know  not  their  right  hand  from  the  left. 

What  has  been  said  might  serve  for  a  complete 
answer  to  all  the  glosses  of  Peter  Edwards  on  this 
passage;,  but  if  notice  is  not  taken  of  his  pretended 
reasoning,  it  might  be  consti'ued,  that  it  was  be- 
cause we  could  make  no  reply.  Peter  Edwards  has 
confined  himself  to  three  conclusions.* 

1.  That  the  phrase  extends  to  adults  and  infants. 

2.  That  this  promise  must  comprehend  adults 
and  infants,  wherever  it  comes,  even  as  long  as  God 
shall  continue  his  word  to  us. 

.  3.  That  infants  are  placed  in  the  same  relation 
to  baptism,  as  they  were  of  old  to  circumcision. 

Sometimes  the  baptists  are  so  idly  employed  as 
to  take  a  lexicon  in  their  hand,  and  even  a  Latin 
dictionary.  I  could  ndt  find  the  ^^ord  adult  in  the 
holy  scriptures.  I  concluded  it  must  be  introduced 
in  this  dispute  to  answer  some  purpose  not  found  in 
the  scriptures.  I  found  in  my  Latin  dictionary  the 
Vvord  adultiis;  and  the  meaning  was  a  person  of  full 
growth.  I  supposed  that  to  be  as  large  as  ever  they 
uill  be.    This  seemed  to   embarrass  me;  for  the 

''  Candid  l?*ea"ons,  puirc  59y 


80  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

greater  part  of  mankind,  are  in  an  intermediate  state, 
between  infancy  and  maturity,  and  are  left  out  of 
Peter  Edwards's  classes;  for  they  are  neither  in  one 
state  or  the  other.  If  I  may  use  our  author's  lan- 
guage, I  would  say,  can  any  living  creature  tell  how 
Peter  Edwatds  came  to  know,  that  any  of  the  apos- 
tles' hearers  left  infants  at  home?  This  must  be  a 
guess  of  his,  or  a  presumption  of  his  own,  for  which 
he  so  freely  censures  Mr.  Booth.  I  will  not  dispute 
much  about  the  Greek  term,  nwcx,.  But  it  is  well 
known  by  linguists  that  it  often  means  posterity, 
whether  old  or  young;  but  7va,i$i<x,^  is  generally  used 
when  infants  are  intended.  Let  us  hear  our  author's 
proof,  that  the  passage  under  consideration  means 
adults  and  infants.  Before  I  make,  formally,  a  reply, 
I  will  give  him  a  sylogism,  which  he  may  refute  at 
his  leisure,  viz.  The  promise  intends  adults  and  in- 
fants; but  persons  from  six  to  eighteen  cannot  be 
v:iiled  adults  or  infants;  therefore  persons  from  six 
to  eighteen  are  not  included  in  the  promise.  Our 
author  in  his  wisdom  leaves  out  a  large  number, 
who  cannot  be  said  to  be  adults  or  infants.  In  fu- 
ture I  wish  pasdorantists  to  know  that  baptists  never 
inquire  into  the  age  of  the  candidate  for  baptism: 
they  satisfy  themselves  by  knowing  their  confession. 
"  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest," 
is  their  practice,  whether  old  or  young.  The  plirase 
adult  I  despise,  as  no  wise  expressive  of  our  faith  or 
practice;  nor  is  it  found  in  the  scriptures.  Let  us 
now  attend  to  our  author's  proof,  and  \ve  find  it. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  gl 

It.  in  the  resemblance  between  this  promise,  and  thai 
of  Genesis  xvii.  7.  This  I  have  fully  explained  al- 
ready, to  which  I  would  refer  the  reader.  Well,  let 
Peter  go  on:  "  To  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  unto  thy 
seed  after  thee."  No  man  can  be  so  deceived  as  to 
suppose  that  there  is  any  reference  to  the  promise 
recorded  in  Gen.  xvii.  7.  in  the  promise  under  con- 
sideration. Could  I  really  believe  that  Peter  Ed- 
wards thought  so,  I  would  form  a  better  opinion  of 
him  than  what  I  have  at  present.  This  is  said  to  try 
to  baffle  the  baptists;  but  he  will  find  himself  mis- 
taken. I  ha\^e  already  unanswerably  demonstrated 
that  the  promise  to  which  the  apostle  refers,  is  found 
ijTkJoel,  and  mentioned  by  him  as  an  explanation 
of  what  happened  at  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  pen- 
tecost.  In  all  the  Acts  of  the  apostles,  no  mention 
is  made  of  Gen.  xvii.  7.  It  is  remarkable  that  p^do- 
rantists  can  do  nothing  without  Abraham  at  the  be- 
ginning or  ending  of  their  tale.  But  he  will  afford  them 
no  more  assistance  than  he  did  to  the  rich  man  in  hell. 
We  will  proceed  to  consider  the  argument,  and  what 
resemblance  is  there  between  God  promising  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  as  many  as  he  shall  call,  and  God  promis- 
ing to  Abraham  to  be  a  God  unto  him  and  unto  his 
seed  after  him,  which  God  had  fulfilled  long  before 
the  day  of  pentecost;  but  the  promise  in  Joel  was 
not  fulfilled  before.  When  God  mentioned  seed,  did 
he  mean  infants?  By  no  means:  he  meant  his  pos- 
terity; and  the  promise  referred  totally  to  the  land 
of  Canaan,  and  his  providential  care  in  bringing  Is* 

M 


32  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

rael  into  that  land.  Seed  is  seed,  whetlier  old  oi 
young;  and  which  is  meant  must  be  understood  by 
circumstances.  But  as  this  promise  refers  to  Joel, 
all  that  is  said  about  any  other  promise  is  merely 
quibbling  and  wresting  the  holy  scriptures,  and  tor- 
menting them  to  speak  what  never  was  designed  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Gen.  xvii.  I  have  already  fully  ex- 
plained. I  have  proved  that  promise  is  not  under 
consideration  at  present.  It  is  very  strange  to  me 
that  Peter  Edwards  cannot  consider  any  text  with- 
out asserting  broad  falsehoods:  and  a  greater  one 
never  was  asserted  than  that  an  ordinance  of  God  is 
founded  on  any  promise  of  God.  Did  Abraham  cir- 
cumcise himself  or  his  seed,  because  God  had  pro- 
mised to  be  a  God  unto  him  and  his  seed  after  him? 
By  no  means:  for  God  had  made  that  promise  long 
before  he  was  circumcised;  and  it  was  neither  a 
duty  nor  privilege  till  God  commanded  him.  Gen. 
xvii.  9,  10.  Did  the  apostles  baptize,  because  our 
Lord  had  said,  *'  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  to 
the  end  of  the  world?"  Matt,  xxviii.  20.  No,  they 
baptized  because  he  commanded  them  so  to  do  in  a 
preceding  verse.  If  they  had  presumed  to  baptize 
without  his  command,  he  would  have  asked  them, 
who  hath  required  this  at  your  hand? 

Peter  Edwards  set  out  under  mistakes;  and  he  tries 
to  support  his  falsehoods.  We  are  on  all  occasions, 
entertained  with  the  words  Church  and  church  mem- 
bership, which  have  no  foundation  in  scripture  or 
sense,  when  applied  to  the  Jews  or  any  other  nation. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.      g.l 

Not  all  the  paedorantists  on  earth  can  show  us 
when  this  church  was  made.  I  confess,  the  baptists 
have  been  a  little  to  blame  on  this  subject,  as  they 
have  without  any  examination  used  the  phrase; 
but  I  hope  I  have  rectified  that  mistake;  and  for  the 
future,  Judaizers  must  take  other  ground.  I  have  in 
this  pamphlet  again  and  again  explained  all  God's 
promises  made  to  Abraham  and  his  seed.  I  have 
proved  that  they  literally  meant  not  all  his  natural  seed. 
I  have  made  appear  that  when  seed  was  taken  in  a 
spiritual  sense,  it  meant  Christ  and  his  elect;  that, 
literally,  the  promise  intended  only  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan; and  that  God  saying  he  would  be  a  God  to 
him  and  his  seed  after  him,  meant  no  more  than  that 
he  would  guard  and  preserve  some  of  his  seed  into 
the  possession  of  Canaan.  All  these  promises  God 
has  fulfilled.  I  have  proved  that  circumcision  was 
not  founded  on  any  promise,  but  on  a  positive  com- 
mand. Gen.  xvii.  9,  10. 

Peter  Edwards  appears  to  be  as  much  mistaken 
about  baptism  as  circumcision;  for  in  all  his  argu- 
ments, he  represents  it  founded  on  a  promise;  and 
that  it  is  an  entrance  into  the  church;  which  is  alto- 
gether a  mistake,  not  founded  on  any  passage  of 
scripture.  Baptism  necessarily  precedes  the  very 
existence  of  a  church.  If  children  are  admitted 
members,  I  will  form  a  syllogism  which  must  be 
admitted  as  an  unavoidable  consequence,  viz.  Every 
member  of  a  church,  free  from  immorality,  ought 
to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  supper;  children  are 


84  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

free  from  immorality;  therefore  children  ought  to 
be  admitted  to  the  Lard's  supper.  This  was  the 
practice  towards  the  close  (^f  the  fourth  century. 
There  is  as  good  reason  for  the  one  as  for  the  other. 
This  has  been  a  digression;  but  it  arose  from  Peter 
Edwards's  reasoning  on  the  passage  of  scripture 
under  consideration.  I  shall  add  a  few  words,  and 
pass  to  the  next  thing  to  be  considered. 

In  my  opinion,  I  have  proved,  beyond  reasonable 
contradiction,  that  the  thing  promised  is  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  his  work  under  the  gospel  dispensation. 
And  then  the  words  would  read  thus,  viz.  The  pro- 
mise of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  to  you;  for 
God  said,  in  the  latter  day  he  would  pour  out  of  his 
Spirit  on  all  flesh.  And  the  promise  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  to  your  children;  for  your  sons  and  your 
daughters  shall  prophesy.  And  the  promise  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many 
as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call.  Why  Peter  Ed- 
wards went  to  the  xvii.  of  Genesis,  no  mortal  can 
see,  except  it  was  to  blind  the  reader,  and  niislead 
him  in  his  inquiries  on  the  subject.  Were  I  to  cor- 
rect every  mistake  of  Peter  Edwards  on  this  pas- 
sage, I  should  be  obliged  to  correct  almost  every 
sentence  in  eight  pages.  We  pass  to  the  next  pas- 
sages considered  by  our  author,  viz.  the  households, 
who  were  baptized. 

The  instances  of  this  kind  are  three:  ^  the  family 

*  candid  Re^asons,  page  ^0- 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  95 

of  Lydia,  Acts  xvi.  15.  the  family  of  the  jailer, 
Acts  xvi.  33.  and  that  of  Stephaniis,  1  Cor.  i.  16. 
Our  author  mentioned  three  instances  of  households 
being  baptized.  We  might  have  expected  some  re- 
marks on  each  instance,  especially  as  he  proposed 
to  have  truth  for  his  object;  but  in  this  the  reader 
is  disappointed;  for  not  even  the  texts  are  presented 
^o  view,  except  that  of  the  jailer,  and  that  in  a  mu- 
tilated form.  No  doubt  he  had  his  reasons  for  this 
omission.  Our  author  is  crafty;  for  when  the  pas- 
sage, if  transcribed,  would  stare  him  in  the  face,  and 
convict  him  of  handling  the  word  of  God  deceitfully^ 
he  can  slily  pass  it  by,  without  ceremony.  I  will 
first  transcribe  the  passages,  as  they  are  recorded  in 
the  scriptures.  And  the  case  of  Lydia  and  her  houses 
hold  comes  first  under  consideration.  "  And  a  cer- 
tain woman  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  purple,  of  the 
city  of  Thyatira,  which  worshipped  God,  heard  us; 
tvhose  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she  attended  unto 
the  things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul.  And  when 
she  was  baptized,  anjd  her  household,  she  besought 
us,  saying,  if  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  to 
the  Lord,  come  into  my  house,  and  abide  there." 
Acts  xvi.  14,  15.  Before  any  argument  from  this 
passage  can  be  drawn  in  favour  of  infant  sprinklings 
it  is  first  necessary  to  determine  whether  she  was  a 
married  woman  or  not.  The  text  is  not  favourable 
to  the  sentiment;  for  she  said,  come  into  my  house. 
This  is  not  the  language  of  married  women:  they 
would  ^ay,  come  into  our  house*    This  shows  she 


86      CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

was  the  proprietor  of  it.  If  she  had  a  husband  it 
might  have  been  expected,  to  hear  something  of  his 
conduct  on  the  occasion;  but  all  is  silent  as  the 
grave.  All  in  this  passage  is  decidedly  against  Peter's 
system;  and  therefore  he  artfully  passed  it  by,  with- 
out any  criticism  on  the  Greek. 

We  will  now  consider  the  passage,  which  Peter 
Edwai'ds  thought  he  could  gloss  over,  so  as  to  blind 
and  mislead  the  incautious  reader.  First  let  us  see 
his  defective  statement,  viz.  "  And  he  took  them 
the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed  their 
stripes,  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straight- 
way. And  when  he  had  brought  them  into  his 
house,  he  set  meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  be- 
lieving in  God,  with  all  his  house."  Before  I  make 
any, comment  on  this  passage,  I  will  transcribe  the 
whole  account.  Had  he  done  this,  his  system  would 
have  been  ruined.  The  account  begins  at  the  30th 
verse  and  includes  the  34th.  "  And  said,  sirs,  what 
must  I  do  to  be  saved?  And  they  said,  believe  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Clirist,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and 
thy  house.  And  they  spake  unto  him  ihe  word  of 
the  Lord,  cirA  to  all  that  were  in  his  house.  And  he 
took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed 
their  stripes,  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his, 
straightway.  And  when  he  had  brought  them  into 
his  house,  he  set  meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  be- 
lieving in  God,  with  all  his  house."  From  this,  we 
see  Peter  Edwards  left  out  part  of  the  30th,  all  the 
31stj  o2d,  and  33d  verses;  and  why?  Because  he 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  37 

knew,  had  these  been  transcribed,  his  plan  would 
have  been  ruined.  The  reader  will  please  to  observe 
that  in  the  31st,  it  is  said,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy 
house."  This  was  obeying  the  command  of  Christ, 
*'  Teach  all  nations."  32d.  "  And  they  spake  unto 
him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  the 
house."  Peter  Edwards  very  well  knew,  had  he 
transcribed  the  whole  passage,  every  reader  would 
have  seen,  there  were  no  infants  in  this  house;  for 
they  spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  him,  and  to  all 
that  were  in  the  house.  The  apostles  never  tried  to 
teach  infants,  who  know  not  the  right  hand  from  the 
left.  This  syllogism  follows  naturally  from  this  pas- 
sage, viz.  The  apostle  spake  the  word  of  the  Lord 
to  the  jailer  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house;  but 
the  apostles  never  spake  the  word  of  the  Lord  to 
infants;  therefore  there  were  no  infants  in  the  jailer's 
house.  Let  Peter  Edwards  refute  this  syllogism  at 
his  leisure.  The  apostles  understood  their  master,  as 
baptists  do,  that  none  should  be  baptized  before 
they  were  instructed;  therefore  we  read  of  teaching 
always  preceding  baptism;  as  for  instance.  Acts  ii. 
41.  "  Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were 
baptized." 

Peter  Edwards  has  an  inventive  genius;  there- 
fore he  sometimes  amuses  his  readers  with  presump- 
tive arguments.  One  is  taken  from  no  mention  be- 
ing made  about  change  of  raiment  in  order  to  im- 
merse. This  is  to  operate  against  that  mode  of  bap- 


88  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

tism.*  I  will  pay  him  in  his  own  coin,  and  amuse 
the  reader  about  the  jailer  and  his  house.  I  will 
grant,  what  never  can  be  proved,  that  the  jailer  had 
a  wife  and  eight  chidren:  the  eldest  was  fifteen,  the 
youngest  about  six  months  old,  at  the  breast.  The 
first  thing  that  would  strike  us  is,  that  the  jailer 
went  into  the  bed  room,  and  addressed  his  wife  in 
this  manner;  Rise  up,  my  dear,  and  be  baptized;  and 
bring  all  the  children  with  you,  &c.  What  might 
we  suppose  would  be  the  answer  of  the  wife?  Why 
something  after  this  sort:  My  love,  I  am  ready  to 
obey  you  in  every  thing  possible  to  be  complied 
with;  but  your  request  at  present  cannot  be  complied 
with;  for  you  know  that  Dick,  Tom  and  Harry,  are 
up  stairs;  Martha  and  Tabitha  are  in  the  bed  room; 
here  is  one  at  my  breast;  and  there  in  the  trundle 
bed  are  the  rest.  If  I  was  to  attempt  to  awake  these 
children  in  the  dead  of  the  night,  there  would  be 
such  an  uproar  I  could  not  pacify  them  in  two  hours. 
This  is  an  argument  of  the  presumptive  kind,  and 
weighs  something  against  infants  being  in  the  jailer's 
house.  But  what  I  have  said  before  irrefragably  de- 
termines the  point,  viz.  "  They  spake  the  word  of 
the  Lord  unto  him,  and  all  that  were  in  his  house." 
Peter  Edwards  is  very  fond  of  displaying  his 
profound  knowledge  in  the  Greek  language;  there- 
fore he  could  not  pass  over  the  Greek  adverb, 
-Tctvotjcj,  without  correcting  the  translation;  he  sub- 

*  Candid  Be.TSQns,  page  13T 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  89 

stitutes  as  a  translation  of  ttocvoiki,  domesticalli/.  His 
translation  must  excite  a  smile  in  every  man  ac- 
quainted with  the  Greek  language,  and  cannot  he 
justified  by  any  lexicon  on  earth;  except  Peter  has 
one  of  his  own.  I  have. by  me  Schrevilius  and  Park- 
hurst:  the  latter  is  Greek  and  English;  the  other  is 
Greek  and  Latin.  Schrevilius  explains  the  word 
7r*vo<x.<,  q.  d.  ffyjv  TTiXVT*  o«x,w;  in  Latin,  cum  tota  domo, 
that  is,  with  all  the  house.  Parkhurst  says  an  adv. 
from  TTccv,  all,  and  oixo?  q.  d.  (cuv  tt^vt*  o»t«)  with 
one's  house  or  family;  and  refers  to  the  passage 
under  consideration,  and  one  out  of  Josephus*  Had 
Peter  Edwards  been  as  well  acquainted  with  the 
Septuagint  as  he  pretends,  he  must  have  felt  the 
force  of  Dr.  Jenkins's  remarks  on  Exod.  i.  1.  where 
the  adverb  is  used  and  translated,  "  Every  man  and 
his  household.''^  It  must  be  acknowledged  that  Pe- 
ter is  a  man  of  invention;  and  as  he  knew,  he  could  not 
form  from  Greek,  the  word  Domestically;  he  was 
obliged  therefore  to  have  recourse  to  the  Latin 
word,  domesticus:  that  is,  a  domestic  or  house  ser^ 
v':ant.  In  wandering  away  from  Greek  to  Latin,  he 
was  obliged  to  leave  out,  Tret?,  in  Greek,  all,  and  in 
Latin,  o7nnis,  (all.)  If  he  was  above  being  restrained 
by  the  Greek  adverb,  which  is  justly  translated, 
with  all  his  house,  why  did  he  not  give  us  some- 
thing corresponding?  If  he  had  done  that,  then  the 
passage  read,  "  With  all  his  domestics;"  but  as  chil- 
dren are  never  termed  domestics,  he  thought  this 
would  ruin  liis  whole  plan  of  infant  baptism- 


90  CANDID  REASON$  EXAMINED. 

From  my  remarks,  it  appears  that  psedorantisni 
has  neither  scripture  nor  example  to  support  it.  This 
practice  is  founded  on  mere  supposition  and  super- 
stition; and,  notwithstanding  it  is  so  pleasing  to  su- 
perstitious minds,  it  must  be  as  displeasing  to  God 
as  to  sacrifice  a  dog  under  the  Jewish  economy.  It 
is  ver}^  surprising  that  men  of  learning  and  piety 
would  try  to  support  a  practice  born  in  ignorance 
and  nursed  in  superstition.  How  dangerous  it  is  to 
even  sip  of  the  wine  of  the  whore  of  Babylon?  When 
our  author  had  quibbled  a  long  time  about  the  bap- 
tism of  households,  he  said,  "  This  may  serve  as  a 
primitive  practice,  he  and  all  his  were  baptized."* 

If  the  narrative,  respecting  the  jailer  and  his 
househould  being  baptized,  serves  as  a  pattern  of 
primitive  practice,  then  the  whole  is  contrary  to 
your  plan,  and  affords  not  one  argument  to  support 
your  dying  system;  for  I  have  made  it  appear,  un- 
answerably appear,  that  the  subjects  were  all  taught 
before  they  were  baptized-  "  And  they  spake  unto 
him  the  word  of  the  Lord."  Very  good,  is  there  no 
more  in  the  verse?  Yes,  "  And  to  all  that  were  in 
the  house."  32d  verse.  They  were  all  taught  be- 
fore they  were  baptized.  If  this  is  a  pattern,  it  is 
one  against  our  author's  plan,  and  staring  him  in  the 
face,  amuses  him  with  a  broad  falsehood.  Therefore 
to  infer  there  were  some  in  the  house,  who  were 
not  taught,  and  did  not  believe,  and  nevertheless 

*  Cfindid  Itcasons,  pa.aro  ?•':■ 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  9i 

were  baptized,  is  a  groundless  fancy,  which  has  no- 
thing to  support  it  in  fact,  or  circumstances.  Before 
I  proceed  further  on  this  subject,  I  will  form  a  syl- 
logism,^  viz.  All  who  are  qualified  to  have  the  word 
of  the  Lord  spoken  to  them,  are  qualified  to  believe 
it;  but  all  the  jailer's  household  were  qualified  to 
have  the  word  of  the  Lord  spoken  to  them;  there- 
fore all  the  jailer's  house  were  qualified  to  believe  it. 
The  32d  verse  will  prove  this,  "  They  spake  to  him 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his 
house."  This  verse  was  prudently  left  out  by  Peter, 
as  not  suitable  to  his  system.  Our  author,  after  all 
his  omissions  and  perversions  of  this  passage,  is  not 
satisfied  with  the  form  he  has  given  it.  Therefore 
he  said,  "  he  did  not  consider  this  historical  ac- 
count, as  having  force  enough  of  itself  to  evince  the 
baptism  of  infants."*  What  he  added  afterwards 
shall  be  considered  hereafter.  But  from  my  obser- 
vations, this  historical  account  has  force  enough  to 
prove  there  were  no  infants  in  the  jailer's  house. 
But  let  Peter  alone,  he  will  work  it  out  some  way. 
He  will  therefore  come  to  agreement  with  that  prac- 
tice in  which  we  are  sure  infants  were  included. 
Circumcision  was  founded  on  this  promise  of  God: 
"  I  will  be  a  God  to  thee  and  thy  seed."t  Stop,  Pe- 
ter, not  so  fast.  If  you  ai'C  right  now,  your  assertion 
in  the  20th  page  was  a  falsehood.  There  it  is  said, 
'•  that    infants  v/cre  circumcised,    is   a  fact;    that 

*  i.'siidid  KeascTis,  pag'e  7^  ^  Candi'l  Kc;isona,  p:ig'e  7'i. 


/ 
^  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

ttiey  were  circumcised  by  the  express  comrndnd  of 
God,  is  a  proof  of  right."  Here  are  words  and  sen- 
timeiUs,  as  contrary,  the  one  to  the  other,  as  light  to 
darkness.  But  our  author  is  subject  to  change:  once 
he  was  a  baptist;  now  he  is  a  violent  paedorantist 
What  he  will  be  next,  I  know  not.    The  most  cha 
ritable  conclusion,  that  I  can  make,  is  that  he  had 
forgotten  what  he  had  said  in  the  20th  page,  or  he 
would  have  avoided  committing  himself  by  such  a 
blunder.  And  even  in  the  20th  page,  he  has  not  told 
the  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth;  for  even  that 
sentence  carries  in  it  a  fallacy.  There  he  says,  infants 
were  circumcised,  &:c.    By  this  phrase,  the  reader 
would  be  led  to  believe  all  the  Jews'  infants  were 
circumcised,  which  is  not  true;  perhaps  not  more 
than  one  half  of  them.    For  the  command  in  Gen. 
xvii.  10.  is  limited  to  a  manchild.    God  could  ful- 
fil all  his  promises  to  Abraham  without  circumci- 
sion; but  he  commanded  him  so  to  do,  to  distin- 
guish his  descendents  from  other  nations;  and  there- 
fore he  said  it  should  be  a  token  of  the  covenant 
made  with  him.    I  will  form  this  syllogism  on  the 
subject,  viz.  All  divine  institutes  are  founded  on  a 
command  of  God;  but  a  promise  of  God  is  not  a 
command;  therefore  a  divine  institute  is  not  founded 
on  a  promise.  I  defy  him  to  overthrow  this  syllogism. 
Ishmael,  the  sons  of  Keturah,  and  Abraham's  ser- 
vants, were  circumcised;  and  they  were  not  inclu- 
ded in  the  promise.    Why  were  they  circumcised? 
Because  God  commanded  it    A  command  of  God 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINEU.  95 

constitutes  a  divine  institute;  and  without  a  com- 
mand,  it  is  only  will-worship,  and  must  be  an  abo- 
mination to  the  God  of  heaven.  It  is  a  marvelous 
thing  that  Peter  Edwards  should  be  acquainted  with 
heathen  authors,  and  at  the  same  tim^e  so  excessively 
ignorant  of  his  own  bible.  He  supposes  himself,  as 
the  Jews  did,  to  be  a  guide  of  the  blind,  a  light  of 
them  which  are  in  darkness,  an  instructer  of  the 
foolish,  a  teacher  of  babes;  but  we  find  him  com- 
prehended in  the  character  of  the  blmd  who  led 
the  blind;  and  both  will  fall  into  the  ditch.  One  er- 
ror leads  to  another;  and  this  will  appear  if  we  ob- 
serve our  author's  sentiments  about  baptism.  One 
would  be  tempted  to  think  he  had  never  read  the 
scriptures,  or  he  could  not  have  said  circumcision 
was  founded  on  this  promise  of  God:  *'  I  will  be  a 
God  to  thee  and  thy  seed."  "  Baptism  proceeds  on 
this,  that  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  chii, 
dren."*  It  is  not  easy  to  understand,  when  he  says, 
"  Baptism  proceeds,"  &c.  for  he  speaks  of  baptism 
as  if  it  had  been  an  intelligent  being;  but  what  he 
has  said  of  circumcision  explains  the  passage,  viz. 
*'  Circumcision  was  founded  on  this  promise  of 
God,"  &c.  Then  it  must  follow,  the  meaning  is  this: 
''  The  reason  why  any  are  baptized,  is,  because  it  is 
said  the  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children."  Is 
this  the  reason  why  John  baptized?  Was  he  left  to 
ijifcr  his  duty  from  a  promise?  or  was  he  sent?  This 

"*  Candid  Reasons,  page  71- 


94      CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

is  the  account  he  gives  himself,  on  the  subject: 
*'  He  that  sent  me  to  baptize,"  &c.  Did  the  apostles 
infer  their  duty  from  a  promise?  No:  their  master 
commanded  them  to  teach  and  baptize.  Matt,  xxviii. 
19.  We  see  that  inference  is  a  poor  foundation  for  a 
gospel  ordinance;  but  it  is  good  enough  for  paedo- 
tism. 

By  my  arguments,  Peter  Edwards's  system  is 
laid  prostrate;  therefore  what  he  has  further  said  de- 
serves no  answer;  only  a  few  remarks,  where  he  col- 
lects his  whole  force  on  the  subject.  And  the  whale 
force  consists  in  this:  "  1.  That  God  did  constitute 
ip  his  church  the  membership  of  infants,  and  admit- 
ted them  to  it  by  religious  ordinance.  2.  That  the 
right  of  infants  to  church  membership  was  never 
taken  away."*  There  is  a  fallacy  in  this  statement; 
for  admitting,  what  is  not  true,  that  the  Jews  were  a 
church,  the  statement  should  have  been,  that  God 
did  constitute  in  his  church  the  membership  of  male 
infants,  and  admitted  them  to  it  by  a  religious  ordi- 
nance. But,  instead  of  this,  infants  are  spoken  of 
without  any  distinction,  just  as  if  all  the  Jewish  chil- 
dren were  members;  whereas  the  females  were  not 
intended,  if  they  were  to  be  admitted  by  circumci- 
sion; but  of  this,  scripture  is  silent.  Throughout  our 
author's  pamphlet,  we  are  continually  amused  with 
the  word  Church,  just  as  if  suchva  thing  formally 
existed  among  the  Jews.  Never  did  the  freemasons 

"*  Candid  liessoi^s,  pag-c  72. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  ^5 

search  more  diligently  for  the  widow's  son,  than  I 
have  for  this  phantom;  but  hitherto  I  can  find  no 
traces  of  it.  I  0  ust  conclude  it  is  a  nonentity^  and 
exists  only  in  imagination,  and  has  been  used  with- 
out examination.  I  have  already  said,  I  wish  to  know, 
when  and  where  this  Jewish  church  was  made.  If  we 
read  all  Genesis,  we  shall  find  not  the  least  hint  of  it. 
We  can  find  that  God  made  many  promises  to  Abra- 
ham; and  what  of  all  that?  Doth  promises  constitute 
a  church?  Then  we  find  Noah's  church;  and  a  very 
numerous  one;  for  it  included  the  brute  creation^ 
We  might  find  Sarah's  church,  because  God  said 
he  would  bless  her  and  make  her  the  mother  of  na- 
tions, &c.  Gen.  xvii.  16.  Were  we  to  suppose  that 
niakinga covenant,  with  any  one,  constitutes  a  church, 
we  shall  find  a  large  number  of  churches,  existing 
only  in  the  brains  of  men.  It  is  to  be  wished  that 
writers  would  be  more  explicit  on  this  subject,  and 
refer  us  to  the  passage  that  authorizes  us  to  call  a 
nation  a  church.  In  the  New  Testament,  the  word 
in  Greek,  E>txA>;(r<«.,  means  a  voluntary  assembly;  and 
in  this  sense  the  heathens  atid  the  Septuagint  use  it; 
but  they  could  not  have,  the  same  idea  of  it,  that 
Christ  and' the  apostles  had,  when  it  was  applied  to 
such  as  were  called  by  grace  out  of  the  world. 

Nothing  need  be  said  about  the  right  of  infants 
being  taken  away;  for  Jewish  infants  never  had  any 
membership  in  the  church;  as  none  did  then  exist 
formally;  as  I  have  fully  proved.  And  notwithstand- 
ing all  the  Jioise  that  is  m.ade  about  it,  the  very  term 


p 


96  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

is  not  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  a  term  pe- 
culiar  to  the  New  Testament;  where  church  mem- 
bership has  some  sense,  and  points  out  the  relation 
to  Christ,  who  is  head,  and  they  are  the  body,  in 
whom  all  the  building,  fitly  framed  together,  grow- 
eth  unto  an  holy  temple  in  the  Lord.  I  hope  Peter 
Edwards  will  not  charge  me  as  being  a  church  mur- 
derer, as  he  did  Mr.  Booth;*  for  I  could  find  none 
to  lay  violent  hands  on.  I  found  it  a  mere  phantom, 
that  vanished  as  I  approached.  Peta*  Edwards  says, 
**  According  to  the  principles  of  the  baptists  God  had 
no  church  in  this  world,  at  least  for  fifteen  hundred 
years."!  And  what  of  that?  Doth  this  prove  the  bap- 
tists to  be  wrong?  By  no  means;  for  God  had  no 
church  formally  for  inore  than  two  thousand  years 
preceding  Abraham's  time.  And  if  he  could  do  with- 
out one  more  than  two  thousand  years,  why  might 
he  not  do  without  one  fifteen  hundred  years?  I  think 
it  would  have  been  better  to  have  continued  longer 
without  one,  than  to  have  one  made  up  in  part  of 
idolaters,  whoremongers,  adulterers,  and  even  so- 
domites, and  without  any  form  of  discipline  for  four 
hundred  and  thirty  year*.  And  even  after  Moses's 
time,  they  were  guilty  of  sacrificing  their  children, 
worshipping  Baal  Peor,  and  shameful  wickedness, 
that  can  be  scarcely  mentioned  witli  decency.  Let 
the  reader  peruse  Judges,  Sam.uel  and  the"  Kings, 

f  Candiil  KeusoDS,  pa^^c  122.    F.r.'ksiscidc  meniis  -a  church  mur- 
derer. 

*  Candid  Reasons,  pajre  120 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  97 

and  he  will  see,  that  to  call  such  a  people  a  church 
of  the  blessed  God,  is  such  a  vile  prostitution  of  lan- 
guag-e,  that  no  man,  who  has  considered  the  subject, 
can  use.  Yet  at  this  time,  and  all  preceding  ages, 
God  had  saints  on  etirth;  but  they  were  not  formed 
into  a  church  formally.  But  I  defy  any  one  to  prove 
that  the  Jews,  consisting  of  good  and  bad,  male  and 
female,  old  and  young,  were  ever  called  a  church 
formally.  And  this  is  all  I  insist  on;  and  which  I  have 
irrefragably  proved.  To  talk  of  corresponding  words 
in  the  Hebrew,  is  nonsense;  for  nothing  existed  at 
that  time  like  to  the  word  Church  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. The  Jews  had  a  word  for  an  assembly,  and 
so  had  the  heathens:  they  used  it  for  such  assemblies 
as  our  courts;  but  instead  of  a  bell,  they  called  to- 
gether by  a  crier. 

I  would  say  no  more  till  I  come  to  the  mode  of 
baptism,  only  Peter  Edw^ards  has  used  much  sophis^ 
try  about  female  communion,  which  shall  not  pass 
unnoticed.  Our  author  triumphs  on  this  subject,  as 
if  he  had  found  an  argument  to  ruin  the  baptist  sys- 
tem. It  is  not  necessary  to  fix  on  any  page  on  this 
subject;  for  it  makes  a  large  portion  of  his  pamphlet. 
The  reader  may  look  over  many  places;  and  in  page 
95  he  will  find  him  saying,  "  According  to  the  prin- 
ciples and  reasonings  of  the  baptists,  a  Vv'oman,  how- 
ever qualified,  can  have  no  right  to  the  Lord's  table." 
This  subject  is  repeated  again,  as  if  now  the  baptists 
are  ruined  forever.  Stop,  Peter,  you  have  not  yet  heard 
all  that  can  be  said  on  the  subject.  Your  assertion, 


s. 


98  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

if  true,  amounts  only  to  this:  the  baptists  do  one 
thing  without  an  example  or  command;  doth  it  fol- 
low that  paedorantists  may  do  another  without  com- 
mand or  example  in  scripture:  to  wit,  they  mayran- 
tize  a  child  and  call  it  baptism.  If  this  way  of  infer- 
ring proves  any  thing,  it  proves  tacitly  that  there  is 
neither  scripture  nor  example  for  sprinkling  children; 
and  this  is  the  truth.  Our  author  ought  to  have  re- 
membered that  two  wrongs  do  not  make  one  right. 
I  will  give  the  subject  a  fair  hearing;  and  we  will 
find  as  good  authority  for  the  communion  of  women 
as  for  men.  Yea,  I  will  assert  it  positively,  we  have 
as  good  authority  for  one  as  the  other;  if  men  are 
commanded  so  are  women  commanded.  The  fair 
way  to  come  at  the  truth  is  to  examine  the  institu- 
tion itself.  And  we  have  a  full  account  of  it  in  Matt. 
xxvi.  26.  viz,  "  And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took 
bread  and  blessed  it,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  the 
disciples,  and  said,  take,  eat;  this  is  my  body."  Luke 
adds,  "  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me."  xxii.  19. 
Mark  to  whom  this  command  was  given.  The  text 
says  it  was  to  his  disciples.  Was  this  command 
binding  on  them  only?  or  doth  it  include  ail  disci- 
ples? This  point  admits  of  no  dispute;  the  command 
was  obligatory  on  all  disciples' of  every  description  to 
the  end  of  the  world.  Here  the  point  is  proved;  for 
women  are  expressly  called  disciples;  and  here  is  as 
explicitly  a  command  for  the  female  as  the  male. 
Take  this  syllogism  on  the  subject,  viz.  Christ  com- 
manded his  disciples  to  do  this  m  remembrance  of 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  99 

him;  but  women  are  his  disciples;  therefore  he  com- 
manded women  to  do  this  in  remembrance  of  him. 
Here  we  have  the  command.  Let  our  learned  author 
try  his  logic  on  this  syllogism;  and  he  will  find  no 
more  in  the  conclusion  than  in  the  premises.  It  can- 
not be  denied,  that  women  are  included  in  the  term 
disciple  as  well  as  men,  and  are  expressly  called  so, 
in  Acts  ix.  36.  The  words  are,  "  Now  there  was  at 
Joppa  a  certain  disciple  named  Tabitha."  Now 
what  can  Peter  say?  He  must  hide  his  blushing  face. 
Is  there  not  as  good  authority  for  the  communion  of 
women  as  men?  The  very  same.  The  command  is 
extended  to  the  one  as  well  as  to  the  other;  and  is  as 
binding  on  one  as  the  other.  There  is  no  way  to 
avoid  the  force  of  the  argument,  but  to  turn  quaker, 
and  say  it  was  binding  on  neither.  Was  I  to  say  no 
more,  to  prove  that  women  have  an  equal  right  to  be 
admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  men;  I  should 
think,  except  the  person  has  parted  with  truth  and 
modesty  at  once,  we  should  never  hear  Peter's 
quibble  mentioned  any  more. 

I  would  suppose,  if  Peter  Edwards  has  not  alto- 
gether departed  from  truth  and  modesty  at  the  same 
time,  we  shall  never  hear  him  say  again,  as  he  has 
done,  "  Can  the  right  of  women  to  the  Lord's  table 
be  proved  from  any  express  law  or  example  in  the 
holy  scriptures?  Answer.  Here  Mr.  Booth  affurms, 
and  I  deny^"* 

•  Candid  Reasons,  page  100. 


100         Candid  reasons  examined. 

If  any  command  of  Christ  can  be  called  a  law, 
here  is  one  before  us,  and  is  an  express  law  for  fe- 
male communion.  This  is  authority  sufficient,  and 
so  express  that  both  the  apostles  and  all  christians 
in  succeeding  ages  understood  it  so  to  mean,  and 
practised  accordingly.  When  Paul  received  his  in- 
structions  from  heaven,  it  was  so  understood;  and 
he  delivered  to  the  Corinthian  church,  consisting  of 
male  and  female,  the  very  command  he  had  received 
of  the  Lord.  This  will  bring  us  to  consider  the 
statement  made  in  1  Cor.  xi.  in  particular,  28  verse. 
"  Let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat  of 
that  bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup."  What  Mr,  Booth 
said  on  this  chapter,  has  given  great  offence;  against 
whom  Peter  has  vented  his  rage  by  a  'volley  of  such 
abusive  language,  that,  if  I  had  not  been  otherwise 
informed,  I  should  have  concluded  Mr.  Booth  was 
a  man  void  of  either  a  religious  or  moral  character. 
I  never  read  Mr.  Booth  on  the  subject  in  my  life:  I 
must  therefore  depend  on  Peter  Edwards's  state- 
ment, which  I  find  is  not  always  to  be  depended  on, 
as  containing  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the 
truth.  His  words  are  thus,  giving  Mr.  Booth's  state- 
ment, viz.  "  1.  Does  not  the  term  avS-^wTroc,  there 
used,  often  stand  as  a  name  of  our  species,  without 
any  regard  to  sex?  2.  Have  we  not  the  authority  of 
lexicographers,  and  what  is  incomparably  more,  the 
sanction  of  common  sense,  for  understanding  it  thus, 
in  this  passage?"  We  might  have  expected  from 
any  other  man  but  Peter  Edwards,  a  refutation  of 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMrNED.  101 

Booth's  sentiments,  which  were  that  uvB-^corrog  stands 
often  for  a  name  of  our  species,  and  we  have  the  au« 
thority  of  lexicographers  on  the  subject.  Now  is  not 
this  all  true?  No  man  who  can  read  Greek  will  deny 
it.  I  do  not  remember  that  the  vaporing  Peter  Ed- 
wards has  really  denied  it;  but  he  has  quoted  nine- 
teen places,  where  it  is  not  used,  pointing  out  our 
species.  And  is  that  any  refutation  of  Mr.  Booth? 
And  what  of  that?  Mr.  Booth  never  said  it  always 
meant  our  species.  His  very  m.ode  of  stating  the 
question  implies  otherwise.  Does  not  tlie  term  av- 
S-^wTToc,  there  used,  often  stand,  &c?  He  never  said 
it  always  stood  for  a  name  of  our  species.  Doth 
Peter  Edwards  act  as  a  fair  disputant,  when  he  ne- 
ver attempts  to  refute  the  sentiment;  but  on  the 
other  hand,  artfully  tries  to  draw  away  the  reader's 
attention  by  reflections  on  Mr.  Booth's  talents?  Pe- 
ter tells  us  of  nineteen  places,  where  the  word  is 
otherwise  used.  Granted.  And  what  of  that?  I  have 
proved,  from  the  institution  of  the  aupper,  that  the 
command  included  women  as  well  as  men.  I  form- 
ed a  syllogism  on  the  subject,  which  cannot  fairly  be 
answered.  And  now  I  have  unanswerably  proved 
that  tlfs  directions  in  vv^hat  manner  this  ordinance 
should  be  attended  on,  included  male  and  female.  I 
might  therefore  dismiss  the  subject,  and  leave  the  ju- 
dicious reader  to  judge,  was  it  not  for  one  sen- 
tence used  against  Mr.  Booth  by  Peter  Edwards, 
viz.  "  I  know  no  jnore  than  the  pen  in  my  hand, 


102  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED, 

what  command  it  is  he  drives  at."*  I  can  tell  you 
what  command  he  drives  at.  The  command  which 
the  Son  of  God  gave  to  the  apostle,  and  to  which  he 
refers  when  he  said,  *'  For  I  have  received  of  the 
Lord,  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you,"  verse 
23.  What  did  Paul  receive  of  the  Lord?  He  receiv- 
ed a  command,  respecting  the  continuance  of  the 
Lord's  supper.  What  did  he  deliver  to  the  church  of 
Corinth,  consisting  of  males  and  females?  That  very 
command  which  he  had  received  and  nothing  else, 
if  he  told  the  truth;  and  no  one  has  convicted  him 
yet  of  any  falsehood. 

Now  I  hope  we  shall  hear  no  more  about  an 
explicit  warrant  for  female  communion;  for 
there  is  the  same  authority  for  one  as  there  is  for 
the  other:  and  if  there  is  none  for  females,  there  is 
none  for  males;  there  is  an  end  of  the  argument. 

For  the  honour  of  Peter  Edwards,  if  he  should 
be  disposed  to  give  the  world  another  edition  of  his 
pamphlet,  I  would  advise  him  to  leave  out  the  sub- 
ject of  female  communion,  especially  where  he  was 
so  confident  and  ignorant  as  to  say  on  the  subject, 
*'  But  as  to  express  law,  or  example,  there  is  no 
such  thing  in  the  scripture."!  I  convicted  him  of  a 
broad  falsehood  on  the  subject;  and  he  may  shift  for 
himself  the  best  way  he  can,  and  hide  his  face  for 
shame. 

When  I  hear  so  much  said  about  infant  mem^ 

*  Candid  Reasons,  page  107.  f  Candid  Reasons,  page  8 


CANDID  REASONS  EXA?vIINED.  103 

bership,  it  brings  to  mind  a  curious  anecdote  of  the 
Rev.  George  Whitefield,  which  he  used  to  repeat, 
when  he  wished  to  expose  superstition.  He  said 
when  he  was  young,  he  and  a  young  catholic  went 
on  a  mountain  to  hunt  some  game:  in  the  mean 
time,  a  thu*ider- storm  arose;  and  they  saw  a  cottage 
on  the  side  of  the  mountain,  to  which  they  repaired. 
The  cottager  was  going  to  dine  on  a  piece  of  bacon. 
It  happened  to  be  lent;  but  the  Roman  catholic  being 
hungry,  sat  down  to  partake,  and  put  a  piece  on  his 
fork,  and  raised  it  towards  his  mouth.  At  that  mo- 
ment there  came  a  tremendous  clap  of  thunder;  the 
catholic  dropped  his  knife  and  fork,  and  cried  out. 
Good  Lord,  what  a  noise  about  a  piece  of  bacon!" 
He  concluded  the  clap  came  because  of  his  going  to 
eat  meat  in  time  of  lent.  When  I  hear  so  much 
said  in  vindication  of  infant  membership,  I  am  in- 
duced to  say.  Good  Lord,  what  a  noise  about  baby 
membership!  I  have  read  and  heard  a  great  deal 
about  infant  membership;  but  I  have  met  with  only 
two  persons,  who  told  me  what  they  expected  from 
infant  baptism:  one  was  a  Mohawk  squaw  at  Fort- 
Pitt,  in  1772,  who  came  to  me  by  an  interpreter,  to 
have  her  child  baptized.  I  asked  her,  what  disad- 
vantage she  supposed  it  M^ould  be  to  the  child,  if  it 
was  not  done?  She  told  me  it  would  go  to  hell.  I 
informed  her  that  was  a  mistake;  we  were  saved  by 
the  blood  of  Christ,  and  not  by  baptism.  After 
some  arguments,   she  appeared  satisfied.    I  found 


104  CANDID  REASONS  EXAINIINED. 

this  superstition  had  been  taught  her  by  papist 
priests. 

The  second  instance  happened  the  same  season, 
when  I  was  exploring  the  Ohio  lands,  under  the 
Indiana  company,  and  came  with  my  fellow  travel- 
lers to  a  house  of  one  Hon-ly  B-k-z,  a  D^itchman  on 
Wheeling.  The  woman  appealed  much  pleased  at 
my  arrival  at  her  cabin;  for  she  had  two  children  not 
baptized.  I  asked  her  what  disadvantage  she  thought 
the  children  laboured  under  for  want  of  baptism? 
She  replied,  that  she  was  taught  they  would  not 
grow  well  without  it.  I  called  Mr.  Clarke  in,  and 
asked  him,  if  he  thought  the  children  would  grow 
without  baptism,  provided  the  good  woman  could 
get  mush  and  miik  plentifully  for  them?  Mr.  Clarke 
^.nswcrtd,  she  need  not  be  concerned  on  the  subject, 
provided  she  could  get  plenty  of  victuals.  She  said 
she  began  to  think  there  was  not  so  much  in  it;  for, 
pointing  to  one  of  them,  she  said,  he  was  as  hearty 
a  child  as  any  she  had.  This  woman  wanted  her 
children  baptized  to  make  them  grow;  but  in  com- 
mon what  is  expected,  none  .can  tell. 

Peter  Edwards  and  I  do  not  much  differ  on  this 
subject;  for  by  inattention,  sometimes  he  speaks  the 
truth.  In  page  tl56,  he  lias  let  one  truth  slip  out. 
He  said,  "  I  do  not  suppose  that  infants,  properly 
speaking,  receive  any  present  benefit  by  being  bap- 
tized."  Very  well  said,  Peter;  this  is  a  truth,  and 
from  this  yoii  can  never  recede.  Well,  what  is  it 
done  for?  for  it  is  as  plain  as  tv/o  and  three  make 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  105 

five,  God  never  commanded  it,  or  some  one  would 
find  out  either  a  command  or  example  for  it.  Why- 
wonderful  to  be  told,  "  This  is  designed  the  more 
to  engage  the  attention  of  parents  and  others  to  the 
rising  generation."  Strange  it  is  to  act  as  a  stimulus, 
to  excite  neglectful  parents.  And  pray,  Peter,  can 
you  in  conscience  say  it  has  that  good  effect?  or  ai-e 
the  paedorantists  naturally  more  neglectful  of  poste-- 
rity  than  others?  If  natural  affection  will  not  influ- 
ence us  to  train  up  our  children  in  the  nurture  and 
admonition  of  the  Lord,  not  all  that  can  be  done  by 
rantizing  children,  will  have  any  effect  on  parents. 
If  by  paying  attention  to  the  rising  generation,  is  to 
teach  them  bigotry  and  hatred  to  other  christians, 
none  are  more  successful  than  the  quakers,  who  ne- 
ver baptize  old  nor  young;  for  they  will  not  suffer 
their  children  to  go  to  other  places  of  worship,  nor 
-are  they  chargeable  with  greater  immoralities  than 
what  is  common  in  the  world.  As  far  as  the  subject 
came  under  my  notice,  none  are  worse,  in  language 
or  practice,  than  descendents  of  paedorantists.  If 
frolicking,  dancing  and  card-playing,  are  immorali- 
ties, these  vices  abound  among  pasdorantists  as  much 
as  any  other  people  in  our  land,  if  not  ratker  more. 
What  I  have  said  has  effectually  excluded  all  Peter 
Edwai'ds's  mistaken  consequences,  which  he  vainly 
imagined  arose  out  of  the  baptists*  system.  I  will 
therefore  dismiss  this  head,  and  consider  the  mode 
of  baptism. 

p 


106  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED, 

OF  THE  MODE   OF  BAPTISM. 

ON  this  subject  I  am  soiTy  to  say,  Peter  Ed- 
wards has  exceeded  the  bounds  of  truth  and  mo- 
desty, beyond  any  man,  who  has  ever  written  on  the 
subject  before.  He  has,  in  a  very  arrogant  and  un- 
principled  manner,  abused  and  per\^erted  the  Greek 
language  most  pitifully,  in  order  to  baffle  the  honest 
inquirer,  and  establish  an  antichristian  superstition, 
which  is  falling  swiftly,  notwithstanding  all  the  at- 
tempts of  its  votaries  to  support  it.  I  should  not  be 
mistaken,  if  his  Candid  Reasons  should  change  the 
sentiments  of  learned  gentlemen  every  where,  when 
they  observe  the  quibbling  sophistry  used  on  the  sub- 
ject. I  hope,  if  any  should  deem  it  necessary  to  write 
again  on  the  subject,  that  the  gentleman  may  not 
part  with  truth,  modesty,  and  a  good  conscience  to 
support  the  dying  cause.  Truth  is  great  and  will 
prevail. 

It  is  a  grand  reflection  on  the  wisdom  and  good- 
ness of  Christ,  that  in  this  holy  ordinance,  he  should 
use  a  word  so  ambiguous  and  uncertain  in  its  mean- 
ing, that  should  render  it  impossible  for  us  to  know 
what  he  meant,  or  what  he  would  have  us  to  do; 
but  I  hope  to  make  appear,  to  all  who  wish  to  fol- 
low Christ  in  this  ordinance,  that  the  whole  account 
is  plain  and  easy  to  be  understood;  that  no  one  can 
be  at  a  loss  to  determine  duty,  except  the  mind  is 
bewildered  by  craft,  tradition,  or  superstition.  "  The 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  107 

inhabitants  of  the  earth  were  made  drunk  with  the 
wine  of  her  fornication."  Revelations. 

Peter  Edwards  tells  us,  p.  128.  "  That  all  our, 
knowledge  of  the  manner  of  baptizing  must  be  col- 
lected from  the  word  Baptize,  the  circumstances  of 
baptism,  and  the  allusions  of  scripture  to  that  ordi- 
nance. These  three  I  will  endeavour  to  examine  im- 
partially, confining  myself  to  the  scripture,  and  the 
word  made  use  of  in  the  institute."  Very  good:  this 
looks  like  a  fair  set  out.  I  shall  follow  you  closely; 
but  I  will  not  solely  confine  myself  to  the  scripture; 
neither  has  Peter  Edwards,  notwithstanding  this  pro- 
mise. We  shall  find  him  using  heathen  authors  to 
help  him  out;  and  I  will  mention  some  christian  au- 
thors full  as  good  as  heathens. 

Peter  Edwards  on  this  subject  uses  three  terms^ 
washing,  sprinkling,  and  affusion;  by  the  last  term 
he  must  mean  pouring.  This  does  not  carry  in  the 
face  of  it  simple  honesty,  nor  does  it  look  like  the 
conduct  of  a  man  who  has  nothing  more  than  truth 
in  view.  Had  he  an  intention  of  investigating  truth, 
he  would  have  fixed  on  some  one  of  these  terms:  he 
would  have  said,  I  maintain  that  baptism  means 
washing,  or  sprinkling,  or  afiusion;  then  I  would 
have  proved  that  it  did  not  properly  mean  the  term 
on  which  he  had  fixed.  Peter  is  a  crafty  disputant: 
he  keeps  three  strings  to  his  bow.  A  back  door  may 
be  very  useful  on  some  occasions,  to  avoid  the  pur« 
suer.  I  now  call  on  him  to  fix  on  either  of  these 
terms,  and  I  pledge  myself  to  prove  that  ^eiTrrt^ca,  or 


108  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

^AfrriiTfXQg  doth  not  mean  it.  However,  as  it  is,  let  us 
see  what  he  can  do  by  sophistry;  for  he  can  do  no- 
thing by  fair  argument.  He  considers  the  word 
|3*7rTw;*  but  he  makes  some  apology  for  using  it,  as 
it  is  not  used  respecting  the  ordinance.  No  one  ever 
said  it  was;  but  lexicographers  have  said  that  |3<»7r- 
T<^<w  is  derived  from  it;  and  Peter  Edwards  cannot 
convict  them  of  any  mistake  on  the  subject.  Schre- 
vilius  says,  ^ccTm^w  is  derived  from  ^ot,'7tru)^  in  Latin 
mergo;  and  Peter  Edwards  must  know  that  mergo 
in  Latin  signifies  to  dip.  Parkhurst  says,  ^<»7rTi^a' 
from  i3o47rTw,  to  dip.  We  see  the  best  authors  in  the 
Greek  language  render  the  Greek  word  (ixTrru  to  dip; 
but  Peter  would  have  us  to  believe  these  gentle- 
men knew  nothing  on  the  subject;  but  he  himself  is 
as  wise  as  Solomon,  and  has  a  lexicon  of  his  own, 
in  which  he  studies  ^xtttu^  and  can  at  pleasure  make 
it  change  like  a  chamelion,  into  any  colour. 

It  must  not  be  a  little  diverting  to  the  reader  to 
observe  the  profound  knowledge  of  Peter  on  this 
subject.  He  says  the  term  ^uTr-Toi  then  is  used  to 
express, 

1.  Throwing  of  a  person  hito  the  mire.  Job  ix- 
31.  Before  I  make  any  remarks  on  the  sagacity  of 
Peter  Edwards,  I  will  present  the  reader  with  the 
verse  as  in  our  translation,  and  the  preceding  verse, 
"  If  I  wash  myself  with  snow  water,  and  make  my 
hands  never  so  clean;  yet  thou  shalt  plunge  me  in  the. 

*  Cu'nJid  Reasons,  page  1^29 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  109 

ditch,"  &c.  In  the  Septuagint  it  is,  Ev  ^qttu  ^l 
«^^<x<v|.fl6<,-."  Here  Peter  uses  without  sense  or  au- 
thority, baptize.  Now,  Peter,  this  is  a  weak  sophism; 
for  if  we  are  to  understand  by  |3ot7rTw,  either  to  sprin- 
kle or  wash,  then  the  reading  would  be  thus:  thou 
shalt  7vash  me  in  the  ditch,  or  thou  shalt  sprinkle 
me  in  the  ditch.  I  defy  Peter  Edwards  to  evade  the 
force  of  this  reading,  if  we  are  to  believe  his  mean- 
ing of  it;  but,  the  idea  arising  from  this  way  of 
handling  the  scripture  is.  Thou  wilt  make  me  foul 
by  washing  or  sprinkling  me  in  the  ditch.  What  a 
noble  cause  must  it  be,  that  requires  such  perversion 
of  sense  and  truth! 

2.  Instance  is  in  Matt.  xxvi.  23.  where  i[A^x^ 
^'ccg,  according  to  Peter,  must  be  translated,  bap- 
tizeth.  Stop,  Peter,  not  so  fast;  for  according  to  your 
meaning,  the  reading  must  be,  "He  that  washeth 
or  sprinkleth  his  hand  with  me  in  the  dish."  Can 
we  suppose  the  hand  was  washed  in  the  food? 

3.  A  stained  garment.  Rev.  xix.  13.  The  pre- 
sent  translation  renders,  with  much  propriety,  "  And 
he  was  clothed  with  a  vesture  dipped  in  blood." 
Pray,  who  told  Peter  that  (Bi(^oi^iJ(,ivov  meant  stained? 
I  am  of  opinion  he  got  this  out  of  his  own  lexicon; 
for  it  is  in  no  other.  But  according  to  Peter's  ex- 
planation,  the  text  would  read  thus,  "He  was  cloth- 
ed in  a  vesture  washed  in  blood."  This  doth  not 
read  very  well;  for  we  never  wash  garments  in  blood. 
The  word  therefore  appears  to  have  been  properly 
transcribed,  dipped  in  blood.    Ail  these  three  texts 


1X0  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

Stare  Peter  in  the  face,  and  convict  him  of  handling 
the  word  of  God  deceitfully,  and  trying  to  deceive 
or  confuse  the  unlearned.  A  very  unworthy  object 
for  a  scholar! 

4.  This  instance  respects  Nebuchadnezzer. 
which  our  translators  render,  ''  And  his  body  was 
wet  with  the  dew  of  heaven."  There  is  nothing  in 
this  reading  improper,  if  we  understand  the  word 
i^flt^g  to  mean  itnmersed  or  overwhelmed.  By  no 
fair  argument  from  this  passage,  are  we  obliged  to 
depait  from  the  original  meaning  of  the  word  (^coTrrw; 
for  certainly  if  the  dew  was  all  round  him,  he  was 
immersed  in  it.*  Any  remarks  on  the  three  heathen 
authors  might  be  omitted,  for  they  can  only  convict 
Peter  of  departing  from  his  word;  for  he  said,  he 
would  confine  himself  to  the  scriptures;  and  heathen 
writings  make  no  part  of  them;  neither  have  I  the 
authors  all  by  me,  and  I  can  place  no  confidence  in 
any  quotation  which  I  cannot  examine. 

It  is  surprising  to  hear  any  man,  pretending  to 
religion,  conscience,  or  learning,  draw  such  infer- 
ence from  the  instances  under  consideration.  We 
see  plainly  that  (iaTrTco  means  originally,  immersion, 
dipping,  or  overwhelming;  and  yet  contrary  to  lexi- 
cons and  common  sense,  one  man  in  England  could 
be  found,  who  has  the  hardihood  to  despise  all  other 
men  as  fools,  and  say,  without  any  foundation  in 
truth  or  fact,  "  So  various  is  the  use  of  the  term 

*  Candid  Reasons,  p-ije  ISS. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  m 

^i^TTTw,  that  we  can  only  view  it  as  meaning  onlt/  to 
wet  or  stain."  Hoc  est  mirabile  auditu.  Pray,  Peter 
Edwards,  wliat  word  in  the  Greek  language  should 
be  used  if  the  intention  was  to  signify  to  dip,  or 
dipping,  or  immersion,  or  plunging?  I  defy  you 
to  show  any  other  word  in  the  language  than  ^oLivtw 
and  ^xTrri^u,  and  their  compounds.  Pray  what  word 
is  used  in  2  Kings,  v.  14.  respecting  Naaman  the 
Syrian?  It  is  said,  "  Then  he  went  down,  and  dip- 
ped himself  seven  times  in  Jordan."  What  did  he 
do?  What  word  is  there  used  to  express  the  action? 
Look  and  see,  and  blush,  if  you  are  not  beyond 
feeling.  I  leave  you  to  God,  who  can  give  you  a  bet- 
ter conscience  than  to  handle  the  word  of  God  de- 
ceitfully, and  abuse  what  knov/ledge  you  have  of 
Greek.  But  I  will  add  some  more  proofs  that  ^oc-nrai 
signifies  to  dip,  that  Peter  may  stand  before  all  men 
of  learning,  convicted  of  ignorance  or  intentional  de- 
ception. Parkhurst,  in  his  Greek  and  English  lexi- 
con, directs  to  four  places  in  the  Gentleman's  Ma- 
.gazine,  as  vouchers  fpr  the  meaning  of  the  word, 
and  afterwards  explains  the  word  ^xttto)  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner,  viz.  "  To  dip,  plunge,  immerse, 
occurs,  John  xiii.  26.  Rev.  xix.  13.  Luke  xvi.  24» 
where  observe  that  ^okitTnv  vSix-rag  is  a  good  Greek 
phrase  for  dipping  in  water."  He  also  quotes  several 
passages  out  of  Homer,  where  ^aTrru  means  to  dip 
or  immerse;  nor  does  Homer  use  any  other  word, 
to  signify  to  dip  or  immerse  but  ^xtttu,  ^ex^TTTi^u  or 
their  compounds.  11"  scripture  will  not  support  Pe- 


112  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED, 

ter  Edwards  and  his  dying  cause,  neidier  will  heaths 
en  authors.  He  has  been  pleased  to  mention  three, 
viz.  Horner^  Aristophanes,  and  Aristotle;  and  if  he  is 
to  be  believed,  not  one  of  them  meant  the  same 
thing  by  the  word.  Homer  means  the  colouring  a 
lake  with  the  blood  of  2ifrog;*  Aristophanes  the 
smearing  a  face  with  colours;  and  Aristotle,  staining 
the  hand.f 

Mr.  Gale,  near  gne  hundred  years  ago,  in  the 
3d,  4th  and  5th  chapters,  in  his  reflections  on 
Mr.  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  has  consi- 
dered all  these  authors,  and  many  more;  and  has 
unanswerably  proved  that  (ixrrco  and  Bonm^u  mean 
immerse.  The  book  is  in  few  hands,  but  may  be 
had  by  any  gentleman,  who  wishes  information  on  the 
subject.  Indeed  it  is  so  masterly  and  decisive,  that 
I  think  no  other  book  need  be  printed  on  that 
subject. 

As  Peter  presents  us  with  a  frog,  which  he 
would  have  us  to  believe  had  coloured  a  lake,  which 
he  says  Homer  mentioned.  The  first  idea  that  struck 
me,  was  that  the  frog  was  very  large,  or  the  lake 
was  very  small.  I  made  diligent  search  for  Peter's 
frog;  but  I  could  not  find  it,  being  under  this  dis- 
advantage, Peter  did  not  tell  m  what  part  of  Homer's 
works  the  passage  was  recorded;  but  by  reading 
Gale's  reflections,  page  96,  I  met  with  a  passage 
something  like  to  Peter's  in  some  respects,  only 

•  Candid  Beasonsi  page  129.  t  Candid  Reasons,  pag'e  130. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  113 

with  this  variation,  that  Homer  was  not  speaking 
about  a  frog,  but  of  a  champion  slain  by  a  lake, 
says,  "  He  breathless  fell  and  the  lake  was  i^oiirmo 
with  blood."*  Here  Homer  uses  the  word  i'^oiTrnro 
by  which  he  must  mean,  in  a  figurative  sense,  the 
lake  was  tinged  or  covered  over  with  blood.  The 
expression  is  a  hyperbole,  and  is  not  strictly  true; 
but  if  the  lake  was  covered  over  with  blood,  the 
idea  that  it  was  as  it  were  immersed  in  it,  or  over- 
whelmed with  blood,  is  very  natural.  Take  it  as  you 
may,  it  cannot  mean  to  wash,  or  sprinkle;  conse- 
quently  it  is  nothing  to  Peter  Edwards's  purpose. 
Mr.  Gale  produces  many  instances  in  which  Homer 
uses  the  word  in  its  literal  meaning:  one  of  which  I 
will  select  and  pass  on,  viz.  Homer,  speaking  of  put- 
ting out  Polyphemus's  eye  with  a  burning  brand, 
says,  "  As  when  a  smith  to  harden  a  hatchet,  or  a 
massy  pole-ax,  dips  them  in  cold  water. "f  No  man 
can  dispute  that  Homer  here  meant  by  (da^Trrii,  dip; 
for  every  boy  knows  that  smiths  harden  their  tools 
by  dipping  them  in  cold  water.  Mr.  Gale  produces 
many  passages  in  the  writings  of  Homer  where  he 
uses  the  word  in  its  natural  sense;  and  in  every  place, 
it  means  to  dip,  but  never  to  sprinkle  or  wash,  ex- 
cept such  kind  of  washing  as  is  done  by  dipping. 

The  next  heathen  author,  produced  by  Peter  Ed- 
wards, is  Aristophanes.  As  I  have  none  of  his  wri- 
tings by  me,  I  must  depend  on  others,  as  well  ac- 

*  Bptrachomyomochia,  V.  51^.  f  Odess.  1.  v-  "92. 


114  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

quaiiited  with  his  writings  as  our  author.  Mr.  Gale, 
page  101,  says,  Aristophanes  has  used  the  word 
several  times.  I  have  marked  down  fourteen,  which 
I  believe  are  all  the  places  where  it  occurs;  and 
none  of  them  in  the  least  favour  Mr.  Wall's  pre 
tences,  but,  on  the  contrary,  make  very  strongly  ftv. 
the  opinion  I  advance.  Mr.  Gale  quotes  the  ver} 
sentence,  where  Magnes  is  represented  colouring  his 
face  with  some  sort  of  tawny  washes.*  Here  the 
verb  is  used;  but  how  he  coloured  his  face  is  not 
mentioned:  whether  by  dipping  it  in  the  wash,  or 
spreading  it  over  his  face,  we  cannot  tell.  We  kno\v 
it  was  possible  to  dip  it;  and  it  might  be  laid  on  the 
face.  At  all  events  it  could  not  mean  either  wash, 
or  sprinkle;  for  by  washing,  we  understand  cleansing 
the  face,  but  never  making  it  foul.  Besides,  the 
words  are  a  metaphor,  and  cannot  be  produced  to 
pro\'e  that  ^aTnu  doth  not  naturally  mean  to  dip. 
Seeing  Aristophanes  has  used  the  word  fourteen 
times;  why  doth  Peter  Edwards  fix  on  this  meta- 
phorical passage,  and  not  on  some  otlicr  passage 
where  the  word  is  used  in  its  natural  meaning?  It  is 
plain,  he  wished  to  fix  on  a  passage,  which  would 
afford  quibbling  and  evasion;  but  this  is  a  poor  de- 
monstration that  truth  is  his  object.  Why  are  not  the 
other  passages  used  where  Aristophanes  is  not  so 
metaphorical?  I  will  produce  some  of  them,  and  let 
the  candid  reader  judge,  v/ho  has  truth  as  his  object. 

*  Uinpeis,  act  1 .  scene  3,  p;i2:f  30- 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  X 15 

Mr.  Gale,  page  106,  says,  "  It  is  very  pertinent  to 
this  purpose,  what  the  scholiast,  on  a  passage  of  Aris- 
tophanes,""*  says,  which  is  literally  thus:  least  I 
(/3*4/w)  dip  you  into  a  Sardinian,  i.  e.  a  scarlet  dye. 
Again,  "  He  first  melts  a  piece  of  wax,  and  then 
taking  the  flea,  he  dipped,  ivi(^(!c\\^yiv,  two  of  its  feet 
into  it.f  Many  places  are  quoted  by  Mr.  Gale  where 
the  word  must  be  understood  to  mean  dip.  Where 
he  mentions  dipping  a  torch,  he  uses,  c^/BavJ^oi;  and 
women  dipping  wool  in  warm  water,  he  uses  the 
word  (^oi^TTTova-r,  but  I  leave  Aristophanes,  and  come 
to  Peter  Edwards's  next  heathen,  which  he  pro- 
duces to  prove  that  ^ooTrrw  doth  not  mean  to  dip 
only.  Aristotle  is  to  do  the  business:  well,  let  us  see 
what  he  can  do.  But  in  doing  this,  common  hones- 
ty would  influence  a  searcher  after  truth,  to  examine 
every  passage  where  the  word  was  used;  but  has 
Peter  done  this?  The  very  reverse.  He  has  referred 
only  to  one  passage,  and  that  altogether  metaphori- 
cal: the  most  improper  to  come  at  the  meaning  of 
the  word.  I  do  not  dispute,  but  the  word  is  to  be 
found  in  the  WTitings  of  Aristotle,  as  Peter  has 
stated;  but  I  cannot  find  the  passages;  and  it  is  plain 
from  several  passages  that  Aristotle  used  the  word 
properly  to  signify  to  dip.  Take  the  following 
instances.  In  his  treatise  of  the  soul.  I^ib.  3.  cap. 
12.  he  says,  "  If  a  man  dips  {(im^it),  any  thing  into 
wax,  as  far  as  it  is  dipped  [i^oi^y])  it  is  moved." 

^  Acharn.  act  1,  scene  3.  f  Nephel.  actl,  scene  2. 


116  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

Speaking  of  a  certain  sort  of  fish,  he  sa)'s,  they  can* 
not  bear  any  great  alterations,  for  example,  to  be 
dipped  in  colder  water  in  summer  (^a7rrov<riv.  Hist. 
Animal.  1.  8.  c.  2.  fin.  Again  he  says  elephants  are 
cured  of  the  flux  by  giving  them  warm  water  to 
drink,  and  hay  dipped  (^aTTTovng)  in  honey  to  eat. 
Hist.  Animal.  1.  8.  c.  26.  If  it  was  necessary  I  could 
produce  many  more  instances  wherein  Aristotle 
uses  the  word;  but  these  are  sufficient  to  prove  that 
Peter  Edwards  drew  a  most  unjustifiable  infer- 
ence, when  he  had  the  assurance  to  say,  before  a 
learned  world,  "  that  we  can  07ilt/  view  it,  as  mean- 
ing to  wet  or  stain."  This  is  a  broad  falsehood, 
which  no  man  ever  asserted  before  him.  Our  trans- 
lators in  John  xiii.  26.  thought  it  meant  dip,  and  so 
translated,  and  Luke  xvii.  24.  The  verse  says, 
*'  That  he  may  dip  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water." 
Why  did  not  Peter  Edwards  try  his  skill  ,on  these 
texts?  A  very  sufficient  reason  determined  his  con- 
duct. He  knew  truth  would  stare  him  too  plainly  in 
the  face.  From  what  has  been  said,  we  see  that  (iccTTTU) 
has  a  fixed  meaning  in  the  Greek  language,  not  only 
in  the  scriptures,  but  also  in  the  ancient  Greek  au- 
thors, though  sometimes,  it  is  used  figuratively;  and 
these  passages  will  never  be  produced  as  a  proof  of 
its  native  meaning. 

I  now  come  to  consider  Peter's  glosses  on  (Bxtt^ 
Ti^6i,  which  all  lexicons  agree  that  it  is  derived  from 
^ocTtTU).  In  Candid  Reasons,  page  130,  Peter  Edwards 
says,,  he  will  considei"  the  word,   by  setting  down 


CANDID  REA5iONS  EXAMINED.  117 

those  places  where  it  is  used  as  a  verb  or  noun, 
when  the  ordmance  is  not  intended.  He  mentions 
three,  viz.  Heb.  ix.  10.  Mark  vii.  4.  and  Luke  ix. 
38.  Then,  Peter  in  his  superlative  modesty,  says^  the 
word  in  these  instances,  is  used, 

1.  For  those  various  ablutions  among  the  Jews, 
by  sprinkling,  pouring,  &c.  As  Peter  never  travels 
the  common  road,  I  was  first  obliged  to  look  into 
Bailey's  English  Dictionary  for  the  word  Ablution, 
and  I  found  it  explained,  *'  A  purgation,  or  washing, 
in  use  among  the  popish  priests."  This  rendered 
Peter's  meaning  darker;  as  Peter  has  not  yet  pro- 
fessed popery;  but  I  cannot  tell  how  soon  he  may; 
and  I  think  it  would  suit  him  much  better  than  to 
profess  himself  a  dissenter.  But  as  he  mentioned 
the  Jews,  and  in  the  next  page  directs  to  the  bible, 
to  read  the  account  of  the  Jewish  service,  Sec.  this 
led  me  to  look  in  the  bible,  supposing  he  meant  by 
ablutions,  the  Jewish  purifications;  but  as  he  did  not 
inform  us,  where  we  should  find  the  passages,  I 
found  I  might  look  any  where.  The  first  passage 
that  I  examined,  was  Numb.  xix.  7.  8.  "  Then  the 
priest  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  his  flesh  in 
water."  The  law  referred  to  the  burning  a  red  hei- 
fer; and  in  verse  eighth^  it  is  said,  "  And  he  that 
burneth  her,  shall  bathe  liis  flesh  in  water."  Here  I 
found  the  manner  of  purification  was  by  bathing  the 
flesh  in  w^ater,  and  this  bathing  always  means  immer- 
sion. This  passage  can  afford  no  reason  why  we 
should   understan,d   the  words  mean,   pouring   or 


118  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

sprinkling.  Quite  the  reverse;  for  none  on  earth  ever 
thought  that  pouring  or  sprinkling  was  any  mode  of 
dipping.  Here  the  scripture  fails  Peter.  We  will 
consider  another  passage,  to  see  if  he  has  better  suc- 
cess. We  will  consider  the  purifying  of  the  leper. 
Lev.  xiv.  9.  "  And  he  shall  wash  his  clothes,  also 
he  shall  wash  his  flesh  in  water,  and  he  shall  be 
clean."  The  commands  of  Moses,  respecting  various 
purifications,  are  mentioned,  Lev.  xv.  5.  And  who- 
soever toucheth  his  bed,  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and 
bathe  himself  in  water.  And  in  verses,  6,  7,  8,  10, 
11,  13,  16,  18,  21,  22,  27.  Here  in  this  chapter 
only,  eleven  times  bathing  in  ^vater  is  enjoined  in 
the  Jewish  purifications.  Numb.  xix.  7.  "  And  the 
priest  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  his  flesh  in 
water."  Could  any  man  suppose,  that  any  person  who 
ever  read  his  bible  could  say,  that  Aiat^o^oj?  /S^tt- 
Tic-jwoif  was  used  for  the  various  ablutions  among 
the  Jews?  How  were  these  ablutions  made?  If  any 
man  can  believe  Peter  Edwards,  "  by  sprinkling, 
pouring,"  &c.  But  sprinkling  or  pouring  never 
means  ^cc7m<Ty^oc.  If  the  word  was  rendered  immer- 
sions, it  would  make  sense,  and  exhibit  the  truth; 
for  this  is  the  meaning  of  bathing  the  flesh,  the  body, 
or  himself.  I  find  this  passage  considered  by  that 
great  man  Grotius,  who  says  on  this  passage,  "  Fa- 
rias lotiottes  noininat^  quia  lotio  alia  erat  sacerdotum. 
Exod.  xxix.  4,  Alia  Levitaruin,  alia  Israelitaruni 
post  impuritatem  co7itracta?n.  And  he  quotes  seve- 
ral  of  the  passages    above  mentioned,  which  the 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  ug 

reader  may  examine  at  his  leisure.  If  Peter  Ed- 
wards produces  any  passage  where  ^a,Ttri<Ty.Qg  and 
oavTicr^o?  are  used  for  the  same  thing,  then  his  gloss, 
or  rather  his  bold  assertion,  w^ould  have  some  foun- 
dation; but  as  he  cannot  do  this,  I  must  conclude 
that  gloss  is  a  groundless  imagination,  fabricated  in 
his  own  fancy,  and  calculated  to  bewilder  the  reader 
as  far  as  possible.  Indeed,  as  far  as  I  can  see,  his 
whole  study  is  to  deceive  and  mislead:  this  is  evi- 
dent in  his  treatment  of  this  passage  under  conside- 
ration, and  the  other  two  texts  following.  In  our 
translation,  the  word  (icc7rri<riAoig  is  rendered  washings. 
Why  does  not  Peter  give  some  translation?  Why 
did  he  not  say  divers  sprinklings?  He  dare  not;  for 
he  can  produce  no  place  where  ^(x.7r no- iA.og  means 
sprinkling.  Here  he  is  pinched  to  the  very  heart;  and 
to  escape  as  well  as  he  can,  he  is  obliged  to  say,  it  is 
used  for  those  various  ablutions  among  the  Jews,  by 
sprinkling,  pouring,  &c.  Among  the  Jews,  we 
know  that  sprinkling  was  one  mode  of  purification; 
but  (boiTrria-fxog  is  never  used  on  such  occasions.  No 
people  is  now  on  earth,  nor  ever  was,  that  consider- 
ed sprinkling  as  any  mode  of  washing.  It  is  the  cus- 
tom of  our  women  to  wash  before  they  sprinkle 
their  garments;  and  words  in  the  Greek  language 
are  as  particular  in  their  meaning  as  in  English. 

As  far  as  my  observation  extends,  the  learned 
generally  understand  this  passage  of  divers  immer- 
sions.   It  is  evident  it  doth  not  mean  simply  wash- 


120  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED, 

ing,  for  viTrru  means  washing,  as  every  man  ac- 
quainted with  Greek  knows. 

The  second  instance  of  using  the  word,  is  Mark 
vii.  4.  which  is  thus  translated,  "  And  when  they 
come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash,  they  eat 
hot."  ^ocTfric-uvrcni  is  rendered  wash.  But  certainly 
StocTTTi^io  here  means  something  more  than  v^tttw  used 
in  the  third  verse;  why  is  vi^l^mrai  used  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  where  it  is  meant  only  to  wash  the 
hands?  And  even  hands  are  washed  commonly  by 
dipping  them  in  water  and  rubbing  them  together. 
It  was  an  unfounded  fancy  in  Peter  Edwards  to 
amuse  his  reader  by  the  possibility  of  washing  at  a 
cock;  whereas  he  knows  not  whether  there  were 
cocks  in  use  at  that  time;  and  in  that  whimsical  case, 
the  hands  would  be  covered  all  over,  and  then 
something  would  have  been  done  more  than  sprink= 
ling  them. 

Peter  is  artful:  sometimes,  no  creature  living  can 
tell,  what  |3ot7rT«^w  means;  at  other  times,  it  means 
every  thing,  viz.  washing,  immersion,  pouring  and 
even  sprinkling.  Washing,  he  says,  page  131,  is  the 
end,  and  dipping  a  mean  to  that  end.  Pray,  Peter, 
what  word  in  the  Greek  language  means  dip?  If 
(S-xTTTO)  or  /3ot7rT<(fw  do  not  mean  to  dip,  I  know  not 
any  word  which  means  Dip  in  Greek.  I  cannot  tell 
how  Peter  can  dip  any  thing.  But  I  have  wasted 
too  much  paper,  in  making  remarks  on  the  whims 
of  a  man  who  can  say  any  thing,  without  the  least 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  121 

check  of  conscience,  as  far  as  appears  to  me;  I  shall 
therefore  consider  the  passage. 

Peter  says  it  is  used  for  a  custom  among  the 
pharisees,  of  washing  before  meals.  Now  can  any 
living  creature  tell  what  they  did?  Yes,  I  suppose 
the  Jews  can  tell.  Let  us  hear  what  they  say.  I  am 
of  opinion,  what  they  say  will  not  please  Peter.  As 
I  am  not  acquainted  with  Hebrew,  I  must  depend 
on  the  honour  and  virtue  of  them  who  were  well 
acquainted  with  rabbinical  writings;  and  I  have  met 
with  none  who  appear  to  be  better  acquainted  with 
Jewish  authors,  than  doctor  John  Gill,  whose  works 
are  well  known  in  England  and  America.  In  his  ex- 
position of  the  text,  he  says,  on  this  passage,  "  The 
scribes  and  pharisees,  when  they  came  from  market,, 
or  from  any  court  of  judicature,  immersed  them- 
selves all  over  in  water,"  according  to  the  true  sense 
of  the  word  ^acTrn^u,  here  used;  *'  For  if  the  phari- 
sees touched  but  the  garments  of  the  common  peo- 
ple, they  were  defiled,  all  one  as  if  they  had  touched 
a  profluvious  person,  and  needed  immersion,  and 
were  obliged  to  it."*  Hence  when  they  walked  in 
the  streets,  they  walked  on  the  sides  of  the  way, 
that  they  might  not  be  defiled,  by  touching  the  com- 
mon people,  t  Except  they  xvash  they  eat  not,  or  im- 
merse themselves  in  water,  as  well  as  used  immer» 
sion  of  the  hands,  or  washing  the  hands  by  immer- 
sion, and  which,  if  only  intended,  is  sufficient  to 

*  Maimon.  In  misn.  chagiga.  c.  2.  §  7. 
t  lb.  hilch.  abat.  tumact.  c.  13.  §  8. 


122  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

support  the  primary  sense  of  the  word  jSctTrr/^a;. 
And  many  other  things  there  be,  which  they  have 
received  to  hold,  as  the  washing  of  cups  and  pots, 
and  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables.  And  here  the  word 
^£C7rTtirfxo<;,  is  rightly  used  in  its  proper*  and  primary 
signification;  for  all  these  things  were,  according  to 
the  tradition  of  the  eiders,  washed  by  immersion. 
In  a  laver,  they  say,*  which  holds  forty  seahs  of  wa- 
ter, which  are  not  drawn,  every  defiled  man  dips 
himself,  except  a  profluvious  man;  they  dip  all  un- 
clean vessels,  as  cups,  pots,  and  brazen  vessels. 
Very  particularly,  brazen  vessels  are  mentioned,  be- 
cause earthen  ones  that  were  unclean,  were  to  be 
broken,!  which  were  all  washed'  before  eaten  in, 
even  on  the  sabbath  day,  and  that  by  dipping. | 

Doctor  Gill  is  very  extensive  on  this  subject.  It 
would  be  too  prolix  to  quote  all  his  authorities:  I 
would  refer  the  reader  to  his  exposition  on  the  place. 
Only  I  shall  quote  Giii  on  the  word  k.A/vov,  which 
Peter  by  mistake  renders  y.Mvoii.  This  may  have 
been  the  fault  of  the  printer.  Doctor  Gill  considers 
the  word  kAivov,  and  says,  the  Syriac,  Persic  and 
Ethiopic  versions,  favour  the  idea  that  the  couches 
on  which  they  lay,  when  eating,  might  be  meant. 
He  shows  how  these  might  be  defiled,  and  the  way 
by  which  they  were  washed.  The  Jewish  canons 
run  thus,   "  Abed  that  is  wholly  defiled,  if  he  dips 

*  lb.  hilch.  mikvaot.  c  9.  §  5. 

fl^Iaimon.  liilch.  mikvaot.  c.  1.  §  3. 

^  T.  bi.b.  sabbat.  fol  IIB.  1-  vld,  Mximcn.  hilch  sabbat.  c.  23  7 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  123 

it  part  by  part,  it  is  pure.*  Again,!  if  he  dips  the 
bed  in  it  (the  pool  of  water),  although  its  feet  arc 
plunged  into  the  thick  clay  (at  the  bottom  of  the 
pool),  it  is  clean."    He  proves  that  the  bolsters  and 
pillows  are  all  cleansed  by  dipping;  and  finally  adds, 
*'  In  short  it  is  a  rule  with  the  Jews,  that  whereso- 
ever, in  the  law,  washing  of  the  flesh,  or  of  clothes, 
is  mentioned,  it  means  nothing  else  than  the  dip- 
ping of  the  whole  body  in  water;  for  if  any  man 
wash  himself  all  over,  except  the  top  of  his  little  fin- 
ger, he  is  still  in  his  uncleanness."J  The  doctor  then 
draws  his  conclusion  from  this  passage  of  scripture, 
and  says,  so  that  the  evangelist  uses  the  words  ^(X7r- 
T/^w  and  ^ctTrTicTjwof,  most  properly,  without  depart- 
ing from  their  primary  and  literal  sense;  nor  could 
he  have  used  words  more  apposite  and  fit.    Various 
rules,  concerning  these  things,   may  be  seen  in  the 
treatise  Celwi  and  Mikvaot.  Hence  it  appears,  with 
what  little  show  of  reason,  and  to  what  vain  purpose, 
this  passage  is  so  often  appealed  to,  to  lessen  the 
sense  of  the  word  |3<3t7rT<(^w:  as  if  it  did  not  signify  to 
dip,  but  a  sort  of  washing,  short  of  dipping;  though 
what  that  washing  is,  is  not  easy  to  say,  since  ves- 
sels and  clothes  are  in  common  washed  by  putting 
them  into  the  water,  and  covering  them  with  it:  this 
passage  therefore  is  of  no  service  to  those  that  plead 
for  sprinklino',  or  pouring  water  in  baptism,  in  oppo- 

*  Maimon.  hilch.  celim.  c  26.  §  14.         f  MJsn  mikyaot.  c.  7-  $  7- 
i  Maimnn.  c.  1.  §  2.  liilrhot  mikvaot. 


J24  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

sition  to  immersion;  nor  of  any  disservice,  but  of 
real  use  to  those,  who  practise  immersion,  and  must 
confirm  them  in  it. 

Peter  Edwards  concludes,  page  133,  these  things 
were  washed;  but  how  they  were,  as  Peter  says, 
baptizedy  that  is  washed,  no  living  creature  can  de- 
termine. Peter  is  more  artful  than  appears,  at  first 
sight:  he  says  no  creature  living  can  determine.  That 
is,  Maimonides  is  dead;  and  so  is  doctoirOill.  But 
this  sophism  will  not  bear  out  Peter;  for  their  writ- 
ings are  yet  living,  and  bear  witness  against  Peter; 
and  their  testimony  convicts  Peter  of  ignorance,  im- 
pudence or  falsehood.  Upon  the  whole  I  think  Peter 
treats  the  great  Head  of  the  church  with  more  con- 
tempt than  Thomas  Paine;  for  if  Peter's  statement 
was  true,  the  commands  and  examples  of  Christ  are. 
such  that  no  creature  living  can  determine  what 
they  were.  Consequently,  we  are  left  as  if  nothing 
was  written;  for  every  thing  in  regard  to  baptism  is 
so  intricate,  so  dark,  perplexed  and  obscure,  that 
neither  revelation  nor  example  is  of  any  use.  If 
paedorantism  leads  to  such  consequences  as  these, 
from  such  sentiments  and  systems,  good  Lord  de- 
liver us! 

The  baptists  have  this  consolation:  if  they  are 
wrong,  so  were  all  christians  for  many  centuries;  for 
no  man,  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  such  as  are 
called  the  Fathers,  will  say  that  they  baptized  any 
other  way  than  by  immersion;  except  the  case  of 
Clinics   in  the  fourth    century,   when  their  super- 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  125 

stition  made  baptism  essential  to  salvation.  And  to 
this  day  the  Greek  communion  immerse,  not  only 
once,  but  three  times.  This  is  well  known  was  the 
case  in  Africa,  and  many  other  places.  Nor  was  ever 
sprinkling  used  instead  of  immersion  before  the 
eighth  century  began,  excepting  in  cases  of  supposed 
necessity.  Vide  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism, 
page  283.  As  I  mentioned  Robinson,  I  will  say,  no 
man  has  taken  more  care  to  examine  every  thing  re- 
lative to  baptism,  than  himself.  I  will  quote  a  passage 
out  of  him,  which  fully  accounts  for  changing  the 
mode  of  baptism  from  immersion,  to  pouring  water 
out  of  a  cup  on  the  hand  or  the  head  of  a  child,  in 
case  of  necessity,  and  calling  it  baptism.  The  history 
of  the  transactions  may  be  found  in  page  428,  429 
and  430. 

Pope  Stephen  III.  in  seven  hundred  and  fifty- 
three,  in  distress,  fled  from  Rome  toPepm  the  king  of 
France  to  implore  his  aid  against  the  Lombards.  His 
holiness  brought  a  letter  from  St.  Peter  from  heaven, 
wi'itten  to  Pepin,  to  persuade  him  to  assist  the  church. 
Stephen  remained  all  winter  in  France:  he  gained 
acquaintance  with  the  monks,  who  were  perplexed 
about  the  baptism  of  children;  for  till  that  time  bap- 
tism had  been  administered  by  immersing  the  sub- 
ject once  or  three  times  in  water.  They  proposed 
nineteen  questions  to  the  pope:  one  of  which  respect- 
ed baptism,  and  is  allowed  to  be  the  first  authentic 
law  for  administering  baptism  by  pouring,  which  in 
time  was  interpreted  to  signify  sprinklingo  The  ques- 


126  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

tion  proposed  was,  Whether  in  case  of  necessity^  oc- 
casioned by  the  illness  of  an  infant,  it  were  lawful 
to  baptize  by  pouring  water  out  of  the  hand,  or  a  cup, 
on  the  head  of  an  infant?  His  holiness  answered,  if 
such  baptism  were  performed,  in  such  case  of  ne-- 
ccssity^  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  it  should 
be  held  valid.  The  Latin,  in  which  the  pope  wrote, 
seems  to  intimate  something  more  than  what  is 
translated;  for  he  says,  "  hoc  modo  renatus  particeps 
Dei  regni  efficiatury  I  shall  say  more  on  this 
subject  hereafter;  therefore  I  return  to  make  some 
remarks  on  Peter's  craft,  in  trying  to  bewilder  the 
rea|der,  and  unsettle  every  thing  respecting  this  or- 
dinknce;  yet  the  subject  is  plain  and  easy,  were  it  not 
for  me  traditions  of  men. 

Before  I  proceed^  I  think  it  my  duty  to  take 
notice  of  a  mean  piece  of  conduct  in  Peter  Edwards, 
in  misquoting  Mr.  Booth.  He  says,  "  Mr.  Booth 
himself  will  grant,  in  his  answer  to  Dr.  Williams, 
for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  apostle  uses  the 
term  Baptisms  to  denote  pouring  and  sprinkling  as 
well  as  immersion,"  &c.*  This  is  a  false  statement  of 
Mr.  Booth's  words;  for  he  said,  "  Were  it  granted, 
for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  in  this  text,  the  word 
Baptism  is  used  to  denote  pouring  or  sprinkling,  as 
well  as  immersion,  it  would  not  follow  that  the  chris- 
tian institute,  under  our  notice,  may  be  duly  admin 
i.itered  by  performing  either  one  or  another  of- those 

*  Candid  Reasons,  page  74 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  127 

three  different  actions."  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  he 
did  not  grant  it;  no,  not  even  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment.  Let  the  world  judge  of  such  conduct,  which 
no  man  of  principle  could  be  guilty  of.  And  imme- 
diately he  adds,  "  And  indeed  a  man  must  be  very 
defective,  in  point  of  modesty,  who  will  even  at- 
tempt to  deny  this."  WeJJ  said,  Peter.  I  will  re- 
verse the  sentence,  and  say,  a  man  must  be  very  de- 
fective, not  only  in  modesty,  but  also  in  knowledge, 
who  dare  say  that  the  passages,  referred  to,  mean 
pouring  or  sprinkling  as  well  as  immersion.  This 
will  appear  in  all  the  passages  quoted,  and  the  obser- 
vations which  I  ha-s'e  made  on  them.  Peter  Ed- 
wards says,  "  The  apostle  speaks  of  the  Jewish  ser- 
vice, and  says,  it  stood  in  divers  baptisms."  I  ask 
whether  the  immersion  was  any  part  of  that  service?* 
J  have  proved  in  many  instances  the  body  was  bath- 
ed in  water.  The  reader  should  turn  back  and  ex- 
amine the  places  in  scripture,  and  passages  quoted 
from  other  authors;  and  he  will  soon  be  convinced, 
that  no  man,  with  any  knowledge  of  the  scriptures 
and  possessed  of  common  honesty,  would  have  ask- 
ed the  question. 

Peter  Edwards  wastes  time  and  paper  for  near 
iive  pages  in  ridiculous  quibbles,  which  could  be 
easily  exposed  to  the  scorn  of  every  honest  man; 
but  what  he  has  said  without  any  foundation  in 
truthjt  I  will  consider,  viz.    "  It  cannot  be  proved 

*  C£.ndicl  R'»a;--ons,  page  331.         f  Candid  Reasons,  page^tSP 


128  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

with  certainty,  that  even  those,  who  were  baptized 
at  Jordan,  Enon,  &c.  were,  I  will  not  say  totally 
immersed,  but  that  they  were  so  much  as  in  the  wa- 
ter at  all."  It  IS  very  strange  that  Peter  cannot  quote 
one  passage  of  scripture  fairly.  There  is  no  text 
says  any  person  was  ever  baptized  at  Jordan.  The 
scripture  say  in  Jordan;  but  Peter  neither  regards 
God  or  man.  Such  a  statement  represents  the  trans- 
lators as  an  ignorant  pack  of  boobies,  who  were  cal- 
culated only  to  mislead;  but  I  believe  their  character 
is  much  better  than  Peter  Edwards's.  Peter  expects 
to  shield  himself  under  the  uncertainty  of  the  Greek 
prepositions;  and  therefore  says,  "  whoever  is  ac- 
quainted with  the  indeterminate  sense  of  the  prepo- 
sitions ev,  s»f,  6;c,  and  a^Trw,  on  which  the  proof  must 
depend,  will  be  very  sensible  of  this."  I  am  ac- 
quainted with  these  prepositions,  perhaps  almost  as 
well  as  Peter;  and  yet  I  am  not  sensible  of  their 
meaning  being  so  doubtful  as  Peter  would  insinuate. 
I  think  it  very  easy  to  determine  their  sense  from 
the  passages  in  which  they  occur. 

We  will  begin  with  the  first  instance  where  iv 
is  used,  Matt.  iii.  6.  where  iv  tw  lo^Sdvvi,  in  Jordan, 
is  used.  Here  Peter  says  zv  means  not  only  m,  but 
7iigh^  neai%  at^  by^  &c.  This  obliged  me  to  examine 
my  lexicons:  none  of  them  favoured  Peter's  asser- 
tion. They  may  have  several  meanings;  but  none 
of  them  said  it  meant  nigh^  near^  at,  by,  &c.  Peter 
Edwards  seems  to  have  a  lexicon  of  his  own,  in 
which  he  studies  the  meaning  of  (ioiTrntu)  and  (iarr. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  129 

Tjfl-|Uo  -  but  there  is  something  very  unhappy  on  this 
subject,  that  his  lexicon  is  different  from  all  others 
extant.  Had  he  condescended  to  inform  us,  where 
the  word  was  so  used,  it  would  have  saved  us  the 
trouble  of  searching  all  the  New  Testament,  to  fiad 
*he  nlace  or  places,  where  it  was  so  used.  This  au- 
thor would  have  us  to  believe  that  he  is  the  most 
accomplished  Greek  scholai'  in  the  world;  but  with 
all  his  superlative  knowledge,  one  thing  of  impor- 
tance seems  to  have  escaped  his  notice;  and  that  is 
this,  that  wherever  the  Greek  preposition  .gv  refers 
to  a  PLACE,  where  any  thing  is  transacted,  there  it 
must  be  understood  to  mean,  in,  and  nothing  else, 
as  far  as  I  have  observed.  I  will  give  some  exam- 
ples on  the  subject.  I  have  examined  the  evangelist 
Matthew;  and  if  I  have  counted  correctly,  the  pre- 
position £v  is  used  one  hundred  and  eighty-four 
times;  and  in  none  of  these  places  can  it  be  translated, 
7iigh^  7iear,  at,  hy.  This  kind  of  jargon  is  only  to  be 
found  in  Peter's  lexicon  of  his  own  making,  which 
he  intends  perhaps  to  publish  to  confirm  the  faitli  of 
paedorantists  on  this  subject.  If  Peter  should  be  dis- 
posed to  write  another  learned  piece  on  the  subject, 
I  would  thank  him  to  point  out  where  the  word  is 
used  one  hundred  and  eighty-four  times,  for  nighy 
near,  at,  hy,  &c.  I  w^ould  refer  the  reader  to  the  texts 
where  baptism  is  said  to  have  been  performed. 
Matt.  iii.  6.  it  is  [vi  ru  lo^^^xvjj)  in  Jordan:  this  is 
the  place  where  it  was  performed.  Mark  relates  the 
same  history,  and  says,  chap.   i.   5.   sv  tw  lo^^ccvij 

s 


130  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

TOTdfAu  i.  e.  in  the  river  Jordan.  John  was  baptizing 
iv  AiVMv:  here  it  must  mean  that  Enon  was  the 
place  where  this  transaction  took  place,  because 
there  was  much  water  there.  John  iii.  23.  I  shall 
have  this  passage  under  consideration  hereafter.  The. 
Jews  said  Christ  should  be  born  in  Bethlehem, 
Matt.  ii.  5.  Here  gv  is  used;  and  as  far  as  I  have  ob- 
served, it  will  stand  good,  that  where  the  preposi- 
tion refers  to  the  place,  in  which  any  event  has  taken 
place,  or  any  thing  has  been  transacted,  there  the 
tvord  is  to  be  understood  to  mean  in.  After  David 
slew  Goliath,  he  cut  of  his  head  with  his  sword, 
wherein  Goliath  trusted.  Peter  Edwards  seems  to 
glory  in  his  Greek;  I  conclude  he  is  prostrate  on  the 
ground  by  his  own  weapon. 

To  use  Peter's  phrase  to  his  second  text,  viz. 
Acts  viii.  38.  They  went  down  both  {ng  to  v^u^) 
into  the  water:  but  Peter  says,  (sk)  besides,  into, 
often  means,  towards,  near,  &c.  Peter  is  badly 
pinched:  he  must  have  recourse  to  more  quibbling. 
It  must  be  a  miserable  cause,  which  drives  a  man 
to  such  pitiful  shifts,  to  support  it.  There  is  not  a 
word  in  the  Greek  language  with  a  more  fixed  and 
determinate  meaning  than  nr,  which  will  appear  to 
every  candid  reader,  before  I  dismiss  the  subject. 
The  word  is  used  about  one  hundred  and  nine  times 
in  the  evangelist  Matthew;  and  in  none  of  these 
places  will  it  bear  to  be  translated,  towards,  near^ 
&c.  There  is  not  another  word  in  the  Greek  used, 
when  we  must  understand  into  to  be  meant.    I  can 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  131 

guess  at  the  few  passages,  which  Peter  referred  to, 
if  he  had  any  in  view.  I  have  seen  that  subject  fully 
discussed  by  Dr.  Gill;  and  I  should  have  thought 
that  any  man,  who  has  read  him,  would  not  expose 
his  Cause  by  mentioning  the  preposition  £<i,  as  having 
an  indeterminate  meaning. 

If  this  quibble  was  true,  it  would  favour  one 
kind  of  universalists;  for  if  w  will  not  take  a  man 
to  hell,  he  cannot  get  there,  for  it  is  £<?  yawoiv  in 
every  place,  where  into  hell  is  mentioned  in  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  the  faith  of  christians  that  sinners 
go,  not  towards,  near,  but  into  hell.  Another  bad 
consequence,  by  rendering  the  word  indeterminate, 
is,  without  it  means  into,  we  must  not  believe  that 
Clirist  did  not  ascend  into  heaven;  for  the  Greek  is 
g«?  Tov  ov'^avov.  Mark  xvi.  19.  We  will  consider 
the  passage  referred  to,  Acts  viii.  28.  But  a  word 
on  the  26th  verse,  where  we  are  informed,  they  came 
to  a  certain  water;  the  Greek  is  stt*  ti  utTo/^.  You 
see  here  that  Philip  and  the  eunuch  came  to  (£7r<) 
a  certain  water,  but  this  word  did  not  brmg  them 
into  it;  but  after  the  eunuch  confessed  his  faith,  the 
scripture  says  positively,  they  went  both  down  into 
the  water  and  he  baptized  him.  Now  observe,  they 
came  to  this  water  before  they  went  down  into  it. 
Notwithstanding,  if  we  take  it  in  Peter's  way,  it  reads, 
they  went  both  towards  the  water,  or  they  went 
near  it,  when  they  were  at  it  before.  This  is  turn, 
ing  the  scripture  into  nonsense,  to  support  an  insi- 
pid superstition.    This  preposition,  in  some  places, 


152  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

may  be  rendered  in  some  respects,  in  a  different 
meaning  besides  into;  but  none  of  them  will  support 
Peter  Edwarjds's  purpose.  I  have  examined  one  hun> 
dred  and  nine  places  in  Matthew,  wherein  the  word 
signifies  intOy  and  must  be  so  understood;  and  it  was 
so  understood  by  the  translators,  or  why  did  they  use 
it?  It  is  granted  Peter  Edwards  doth  not  say  it  doth 
not  mean  into,  only.  This  would  be  too  barefaced;  but 
he  says,  it  often  means,  toxvards,  near,  &c.  Why 
did  he  not  point  out  the  passages,  that  we  might 
examine  them?  No:  he  sneaks  off,  with  his  bare  S2cy- 
so.  Poor  authority  indeed!  Doth  this  suit  a  man 
whose  object  is  truth  alone?  We  come  now  to  airo-. 
I  have  observed  that  the  preposition  gv  is  used  in 
Matthew  eighty-four  times,  always  signifying  in;  now 
if  Christ  was  baptized  in  Jordan,  octvq  must  have 
brought  hmi  out  of  it,  or  he  remains  there  still.  I 
did  not  think  it  necessary  to  read  one  of  the  evan- 
gelists  through;  but  I  have  examined  several  places 
which  mean  out  of;  but  in  some  of  them,  it  is  trans- 
lated y/'owz,  which  means  out  of;  and  it  is  a  matter 
of  indifference,  which  of  the  words  are  used;  because 
fro7n  means  out  of  as  is  evident  from  Mark  i.  9. 
Jesus  came  otTro,  out  of,  Na^ci^sT  rij?  yuxlAonx?.  If 
it  is  granted  that  Jesus  lived  in  Nazareth,  he  certain- 
ly came  out  of  it.  Matthew,  chap.  iii.  and  xiii.  uses 
the  same  phrcise;  where  also  it  must  mean  out  of 
Can  it  be  supposed  that  Mark,  chap.  i.  and  ix.  uses 
etTTo  for  coming  out  of  Galilee,  and  in  the  next 
verse  <x.7ro  rov  v^oiTo?  should  mean  a  different  thing^ 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  133 

Can  any  man  believe  this,  but  such  as  wish  to  have 
it  so?  See  also  Matt.  xiv.  29.  out  of  the  ship  («7ro 
Tou  ttKoiov).  And  oiTTo  Tov  o^ouc,  cliap.  viii.  1.  might 
be  justly  translated  Out  of  the  mountain.  A  moun- 
tain has  a  boundary,  when  this  is  passed  you  go 
into  the  mountain;  and  when  you  descend,  you 
come  out  of  the  mountain.  Verse  11.  out  of  the 
east  {ciTTo  uvcuToAcov).  Chap.  ii.  1.  The  wise  men 
came  («7ro  ccvcctoAuv)  out  of  the  east;  for  so  the  mean- 
ing is;  for  they  lived  in  the  east;  and  when  they  left 
their  country,  they  came  out  of  it.  In  the  English 
language yro;?2  means  out  of.  Should  a  man  meet  a 
gentleman,  and  ask  him,  "  Pray  sir,  where  did  you 
come  from?"  He  would  answer  "  from  England." 
Should  he  ask  him,  were  you  in  England?  he  would 
answer  "no."  If  he  should  ask  a  third  question,  "Did 
not  you  say,  you  came  from  England?"  his  reply 
would  be  "  yes;  but  from^  doth  not  mean  out  qf^  it 
only  means  the  verge  of  a  place:  I  saw  England,  but 
I  never  was  in  it."  What  would  you  think  of  the 
man?  Would  you  not  think  he  was  a  mean  quibbler? 
Just  such  a  quibbler  is  the  great  Peter  Edv/ards, 
however  his  party  may  think  otherwise.  We  come 
now  to  consider  the  preposition  ex..  Peter  has  coup- 
led this  with  otTTo,  and  only  says,  they  very  often 
signify  "  from."  Had  he  condescended  to  point  out 
the  places,  it  would  have  carried  a  greater  appear- 
ance of  honesty.  After  my  observations  on  ti<;^  one 
hundred  and  nine  times  used  in  Matthew,  and  ev,  one 
hundred  and  eighty.four  times  used  in  the  same 


136  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

evangelist,  I  do  not  intend  to  spend  much  time 
on  iK. 

Parkhurst  gives  one  rule,  which  will  determine 
the  dispute:  he  says,  "  Governing  a  genitive,  it  de. 
notes  motion  from  a  place,  out  of."  The  place  re* 
ferred  to  is  in  the  genitive  case,  (gx,  tou  v^otroc) 
therefore,  according  to  Parkhurst's  rule,  it  means  out 
of.  And  from  my  observation,  the  word  always  sig- 
nifies out  oj]  where  the  sense  will  admit  of  that 
meaning.  Will  it  prove  any  thing,  that  because  the 
word  is  used  in  places  where  the  sense  will  not  ad- 
mit of  it  meaning  out  of^  that  in  the  passage  under 
consideration,  where  the  genitive  case  is  used,  and 
it  may  be  used  with  propriety,  to  mean  om?  o/J  that 
because  pasdorantists  not  wishing  it  so  to  be  under- 
stood, it  doth  not  mean  it  here?  This  is  like  Peter 
Edwards's  logic:  a  mere  sophism.  I  will  close  my 
observations  by  referring  the  reader  to  some  texts, 
which  he  may  consider  at  his  leisure.  Matt.  viii. 
28.  Coming  out  of  (ex,  -xm  fxv^iunuv)  the  tombs. 
Matt.  ii.  6.  Out  of  thee  (sjc  a-ov).  Matt.  iii.  9.  ex,  rwv 
A<9-wv.  Mark  i.  29.  When  they  were  come  out  of 
(£>c  Tvj?  a-vvayooyf^g)  the  synagoguc»  Rev.  vii.  14. 
These  are  they  which  came  out  of  great  (sx,  T)jf 
B-Ai^iujg)  ti-ibulation.  I  would  refer  the  reader  to 
Matt.  xiii.  34,  35.  Mark  xiii.  15.  Luke  xix.  22. 
Acts  xxviii.  3.  2  Cor.  ii.  4.  viii.  11.  2  Tim.  ii.  26. 
James  iii.  10.  Time  would  fail  me  to  mention  all 
places  where  iK  means  out  of. 

In  all  Peter  Edwards's  writings  on  this  subject, 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  137 

he  shows  himself  to  be  an  unfair  disputant.  In  the 
first  he  has  fixed  on  no  sense,  by  which  we  might 
confine  him;  whentreatingof  jS^tttw,  ^ct7rTKTf/,oc^  or  ioaTrl 
T«^w,  three  terms  are  used,  wash,  pour,  sprinkle;  but 
as  we  have  no  determination  which  of  these  we  muy 
fix  on,  we  may  use  which  we  please.  Just  so  is  his 
quibbling  on  the  prepositions:  iv  means  nigh,  near, 
at^  by;  ng  often  towards,  near;  cctto  and  ix  very 
often  signify  yroOT.  Now  can  any  living  creature  fix 
an  idea  on  words  used  in  this  manner?  I  know  his 
object  was  to  bewilder,  blind,  mislead,  and  baffle  the 
reader,  that  in  the  end,  he  might  embrace  his  super, 
stitious  system.  Our  blessed  Lord  said,  all  that  ever 
came  before  me  are  thieves  and  robbers;  but  the 
sheep  did  not  hear  them.  John  x.  8.  Peter  Edwards 
thinks  to  rob  us  of  a  gospel  ordinance  by  his  cun- 
ning; but  as  Christ's  sheep  did  not  hear  the  old 
thieves  and  robbers,  neither  will  his  sheep  now  be 
deceived  by  his  quibbles  to  embrace  the  traditions  of 
men. 

As  Peter  Edwards  has  not  fixed  on  any  term 
certainly  to  signify  baptism,  I  will  fix  on  the  word 
pour;  for  this  is  a  favourite  term  with  him;  and  see 
whether  he  regarded  truth  when  he  drew  his  reference 
from  his  attempts  on  the  prepositions,  and  said,  "  so 
that  where  it  is  read  in  our  translations — in  Jordan, 
into  the  water,  out  of  the  water,  it  will  read  as  well, 
in  the  Greek,  at  Jordan,  to  the  water,  from  the  water. 
And  what  exceeds  ail  boundsof  truth,  he  adds,  "  This 
is  a  truth  beyond  all  disputes,  and  well  known  to 


138  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

every  one,  who  is  at  all  conversant  with  the  Greek.'* 
In  Mark  i.  9.  that  Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  oi 
Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan.   The 

Greek  is,    Kot<e   (iaTTTKr^-y;    Ctto  ""Icoavvov  ng  tov   lo^^avr,v. 

Now,  according  to  Peter's  knowledge  on  the  sub- 
ject, we  should  read,  and  was  poured  of  John, 
towards,  near  Jordan.  This  reading  to  me  makes  no 
sense;  but  the  way  the  baptists  read  it  makes  very 
good  sense,  c;?f/  xvas  dipped  of  John  into  Jordan.  I 
have  proved  that  the  Greek  word  £<?  in  Matt,  one 
hundred  and  nine  times  signifies  mto;  nor  do  I  know 
another  word  m  the  Greek  that  is  used  for  into.  I 
confess  I  have  not  seen  Peter  Edwards's  Greek 
lexicon,  in  which  he  studies,  and  finds  the  transla- 
tors knew  nothing  on  the  subject. 

The  scriptures  say  that  John  baptized  in  Jordan, 
Matt.  iii.  6,  where  it  is  in  Greek  sv  tw  lo^^^avij. 
Mark  says  they  were  baptized,  chap.  i.  5.  (ev  -vZ 
\q^^xv\]  TTWTot^w)  in  the  river  of  Jordan.  John  says-j 
ill.  23.  John  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  Greek,  av  a<- 
\m.  Peter  Edwards  would  have  us  read  it  "  nigh^ 
near,  at,  by:"  this  is  a  mere  quibble;  which  of  these 
terms  must  we  use?  After  all  we  must  change  the 
scriptures,  because  Peter  Edwards  says  so:  which 
proves  nothing  so  much  as  that  this  man  is  possessed 
of  an  uacommon  degree  of  assurance.  Why  did  he  not 
point  out  the  places  where  it  would  bear  this  read- 
ing? I  iiave  asserted  that  in  Matthew  alone,  the  word 
is  used  one  hundred  and  eighty-four  times,  in  which 
it  means  in;  and  wh\-  not  so  here?  No  reason  v'^nn  be 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  139 

given,  but  it  doth  not  suit  the  practice  of  paedoran- 
tism.  The  evangelist  John  assigns  a  reason  why  he  was 
baptizing  in  Enon  near  (in  Greek,  eyyof)  to  Salem: 
because  there  was  much  water  there.  Why  doth  he 
change  the  word,  if  gv  meant  near?  why  doth  he 
use  the  adverb  zyy^q  for  near?  A  very  good  rea- 
son: John  knew  the  language  of  his  country;  and 
when  he  meant  nigh^  he  used  the  proper  phrase  to 
express  his  meaning.  Every  advantage  istakenby  pas- 
dorantists,  if  possible,  to  render  the  subject  obscure; 
hence  the  very  reason  wliich  John  gives  why  he  was 
baptizing  in  Enon  is  cavilled  at.  The  Greek  {y^oi^-rcb 
t:oKK(x)  in  the  plural,  many  waters.  Whenever  the 
scriptures  would  impress  our  minds  with  the  idea, 
of  a  great  abundance  of  ^vater,  the  plural  number  is 
used.  I  find  this  to  be  the  case  both  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testament.  I  never  found  the  phrase  (ttoAAov  JiiTw^)  in 
the  singular  number;  but  where  abundance  of  water 
is  meant,  the  word  is  in  the  plural  as  in  Rev.  i.  15. 
where  the  awful  voice  of  the  Son  of  God  is  spoken 
of,  it  is  said, "  and  his  voice  as  the  sound  of  many 
waters."  Here  is  something  very  grand  indeed;  but  if 
we  understand  it  to  mean,  his  voice  as  the  sounds  of 
many  rivulets,  the  grandeur  of  the  idea  dwindles  to 
nothing.  Mr.  Robinson*  says,  Enon  was  a  large 
fountain  called  the  Dove's  Eye.  And  to  corroborate 
his  sentiments,  he  quotes  the  Syriac,  Persic,  Arabic 
and  iEthiopic  versions,  which  all  render  it  a  foun- 

*  History  of  Baptisir  ,  page  14. 

T 


140  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED, 

tain.  Enon  meant  a  place  that  John  baptized  in,  be- 
cause there  was  much  water  there,  suitable  to  im- 
merse the  candidates.  At  all  events,  much  water 
never  could  mean  a  little  water;  consequently,  this 
passage  can  be  of  no  advantage  to  rantists;  who  do 
not  use  five  gallons  of  water  in  a  year,  nor  perhaps 
in  five  years.  I  am  a  little  acquainted,  or  as  Peter  has 
it,  conversant  with  Greek;  and  by  my  observations 
on  his  performance,  I  hope  it  will  appear  to  every  im- 
partial reader,  that  his  attempts  to  pervert  the  Greek 
ai'e  clearly  refuted.  I  will  pursue  the  subject  a  little 
further;  but  I  confess  the  ridiculous  manner,  in 
which  he  has  treated  it,  might  be  justly  passed  over 
in  silence,  as  unworthy  of  notice.  I  shall  not  attend 
to  all  his  vain  babbling;  but  only  select  a  few  pas- 
sages. 

Peter  Edwards,  page  139,  treats  of  the  allusions  to 
baptism,  where  he  says,  *'  the  reader  will  find  this 
in  Rom.  vi.  4.  '  Therefore,  we  are  buried  with  him 
by  baptism  into  death,'  &c.  A  similar  phrase  occurs 
in  Col.  ii.  12.  The  baptists  think  there  is  an  allu- 
sion in  those  words,  to  the  manner  of  baptizing;  and 
as  the  apostle  speaks  of  being  buried  with,  they  con- 
clude the  mode  to  have  been  immersion."  Here  Peter 
has  given  one  fair  statement  of  the  baptists'  senti- 
ments, which  is  a  wonder.  Now  pray,  Peter,  ai-e  the 
baptists  alone  in  this  sentiment?  Have  not  all  gentle- 
men of  learning  in  all  ages  and  among  all  nations, 
been  of  the  same  sentiment*?  I  know  of  none  that 
have  not  expounded  these  passages  as  the  baptists 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  14^ 

do.  Were  we  to  begin  at  what  is  called  the  apostolic 
constitutions,*  we  will  find  it  said,  "  Baptism  is  a 
representation  of  Christ's  death;  the  water  is  that 
wherein  we  are  buried;  and  a  little  after,  it  is  said, 
the  immersion  is  the  dying;  and  emersion  up  from 
under  the  water,  represents  the  resurrection,"  It  is 
agreed,  by  all  acquainted  with  ancient  writings,  that 
this  book  was  written  in  early  ages,  though  not  by 
the  apostles  themselves,  which  has  been  made  evi- 
dent by  men  acquainted  with  antiquity.  One  thing  is 
evident,  that  at  that  time  baptism  was  administered 
by  immersion;  and  that  was  called  being  buried  with 
Clirist.  TertuUian  says,  we  die  symbolically,  in  bap- 
tism;  upon  which  Regaltius  remarks  J  "  we  are  immers- 
ed as  if  we  suffered  death,  and  rise  up  out  of  the  water, 
as  reviving  again."  Mr.  Gale  says,  it  is  worth  while 
to  transcribe  a  passage  from  St.  Chrysostom,  where  he 
saysj  "  To  be  dipped  and  plunged  into  the  water,  and 
then  to  rise  out  of  it  again,  is  a  symbol  of  our  descent 
into  the  grave,  and  of  our  ascent  out  of  it;  and  there- 
fore Paul  calls  baptism  a  burial,  when  he  says,  we 
are  therefore  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death.'* 
I  could  bring  many  more  quotations  from  the  fathers, 
in  which  they  all  agree  that  Rom.  vi.  4.  where  it 
is  said,  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 

*  Lib.  3.  cap.  17. 

t  De  ResuiTectione  pag'.  354.  per  nimulamim  enim  morimur  in  baptis- 
mate. 

\  IVIergimus  quasi  mortem  subeamus,  emergimus  us  revivascentes, 
§  Horn.  40.  in  1  Cor.  Tom.  3.  pag'.  514-. 


142  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

death,  refers  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  which  at  that 
time,  and  to  this  day,  is  performed  in  the  Greek  com- 
munion, by  immersion.  Were  we  to  trace,  in  suc- 
ceeding ages,  the  sentiments  of  the  greatest  men  in 
every  age,  we  should  find  them  agree  on  the  sense  of 
this  passage.  Grotius  and  Calvin  are  explicit  on 
the  subject.  All  the  learned  bishops  of  England,  who 
hare  written  on  the  subject,  are  unanimous  in  their  ex- 
positions of  this  passage.  I  question  whether  there 
can  be  found  a  man  of  character  m  Europe,  besides 
Peter  Edwards,  who  would  risk  his  character  by 
giving  his  sentiments  in  support  of  such  evasions  as 
Peter  does.  Was  I  to  quote  every  man  of  eminence 
in  England,  who  agreed  exactly  on  this  subject,  I 
would  be  obliged  to  fill  up  a  page  with  their  names. 
I  have  a  pamphlet  before  me,  published  by  James 
Dore,  being  an  answer  to  Peter  Edwards,  printed 
in  London,  1795,  in  which  he  gives  the  exposition 
of  James  Alting,  who,  I  suppose,  was  a  clergyman 
of  the  established  church  in  England.  I  cannot  do 
him  full  justice,  because  he  has  used  Hebrew,  and  I 
cannot  read  that  language.  He  says  on  this  passage: 
*'  Washings,  the  apostle  calls  ^ioi(po^ovg  ^acTrrta-uovg^ 
divers  baptisms;  that  is,  various  immersions.  For 
^oc7rria-[jt,og  is  immersion,  when  the  whole  body  is 
immersed:  but  the  term  is  never  used  concerning 
aspersion;  [Mark  that).  The  Seventy  used  (^octttu^  or 
jSaTTTi^o,  for  he  dipped,  he  dipped  into,  he  immersed, 
whence  ^ccTfrnruog,   with   the  Hebrews  is  called — 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  143 

(here  a  Hebrew  word  is  used,  which  I  cannot  t?'ans- 
cribe.J  the  verb, — (another  Hebrew  word,)  he 
sprinkled,  they  never  translate  /3ot7rT«(^w,  because  it 
signifies  more  than  is  expressed  by  that  Hebrew 
term;  but  instead  of  it,  they  use,  (^oi<vw,  ae^s^^cKvw, 
^flivrji^w,  7r£^£^^c4VTi^«)  to  sprinkle.  The  verb, — (here 
Hebrexu  is  used)  he  washed,  is  frequently  used,  ei- 
ther alone,  or  in  conjunction  with  the  Avord  jlesh, 
which  is  baptism  of  the  whole  flesh.  It  is  often  used 
in  connexion  with  the  washing  of  the  clothes; 
whence  the  Jews  observe,  that  whenever  a  com- 
mand occurs  for  washing  the  clothes,  the  washing 
of  the  whole  body  is  either  added  or  understood. 

Further:  the  Jewish  washings  were  manifold:  as 
of  the  high  priest;  Lev.  xvi.  4.  of  the  priests  at  their 
consecration;  Exod.  xxix.  4.  Lev.  viii.  6.  and  of 
the  I^evites,  when  appointed  to  their  oflice;  Numb. 
viii.  7,  21.  of  all  Israel,  when  the  covenant  was  to 
be  promulgated;  Exod.  xix.  10,  14.  especially  of 
those  that  were  defiled  by  the  carcass  of  an  unclean 
animal;  Lev.  xi.  by  the  leprosy;  Lev.  xiv.  or  by 
touching  things  that  were  so  defiled;  Lev.  xv.  Many 
other  passages  he  refers  to,  which  plainly  show  the 
meaning  of  the  word  S>o!,7rr tc-uog  is  immersion  only; 
and  that  being  established,  it  cannot  be  doubted, 
that  being  buried  with  him  in  immersion,  refers  to 
the  mode  of  baptism;  and  if  this  is  the  truth,  then  we' 
see  that  Peter  Edwards's  whimsical  fancies  all  stand 
for  nothing:  and  worse  than  nothing;  the}^  are  a 
shameful  trifling  with  holy  things. 


144  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

What  Peter  Edwards  says,  respecting  change  of 
garments  not  being  mentioned,  is  a  ridiculous  fan- 
cy, which  would  not  be  mentioned  by  any  man  of 
superior  talents  to  himself;  for  all  he  says  is  built  on 
the  supposition  that  the  people  in  Judea  knew  notwhat 
was  necessary  for  their  own  convenience  in  obeying 
the  Lord.  John  baptized  at  Bethabara;  and,  in  Ro- 
binson's History  of  Baptism,  it  is  made  appear  that 
Bethabara  means  the  passage  house,  or  as  we  call  it 
a  ferry  house,  where  accommodations  could  be  had, 
to  prepare  for  the  administration  of  baptism.  Be- 
sides, in  this  warm  country,  very  little  clothing  was 
necessaiy;  and  if  we  believe  the  writings  of  early 
ages,  they  baptized  next  to  naked,  and  some  of  them 
say  altogether  naked;  but  others  that  they  had  gar- 
ments from  their  middle  to  the  knees  or  thereabouts. 
Any  thing  said  on  this  subject  proves  only  the  ig- 
norance of  the  person  in  ancient  history.  And  of  all 
people  on  this  subject,  such  as  are  forever  talking 
about  circumcision  should  be  silent,  if  they  would 
only  consider  the  nature  of  that  operation,  and  that  it 
must  be  done  before  witnesses.  Let  them  figure  to 
themselves  the  whole  process,  and  lay  their  hands 
on  their  mouths.  God's  institutions  are  not  to  be 
trifled  with.  God  commanded;  and  it  was  the  duty  of 
Jews  and  all  proselytes  to  submit  to  it.  Christ  has 
instituted  immersion,  and  submitted  himself  to  it; 
that  is  enough,  without  using  profane  speeches 
about  changing  of  clothes. 

Peter  Edwards,  in  page  142,  seems  well  pleased 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  145 

with  his  own  fancy  about  planting.  I  call  it  his  own 
fancy,  because  I  never  met  with  any  other  person, 
who  ever  thought  that  passage  favourable  to  rantism; 
but  Peter  is  a  surprising  man,  and  must  entertain  us 
with  something  new.  The  words  are,  "  For  if  we 
have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his 
death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resur- 
rection." Now  can  any  living  creature  see  what  ad- 
vantage this  text  can  be  to  a  psedorantist?  Peter 
says,  page  142,  "  that  whereas  baptism  is  no  where 
called  a  burial,  it  is  in  this  place  plainly  called  a 
planting."  Planting  is  a  phrase  not  often  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  in  no  place  in  reference  to  bap- 
tism, except  it  is  so  used  here.  Paul  uses  it  for 
preaching  the  gospel,  1  Cor.  iii.  6.  "  I  have  planted, 
Apollos  watered."  The  gospel  here  is  compared  to  a 
seed  sown.  This  agrees  to  the  parable  of  the  sower, 
in  Matt.  xiii.  19.  "  Catcheth  away  that  which  was 
sown  in  the  heart."  The  gospel  was  the  seed  Paul 
planted  at  Corinth,  and  Apollos  watered  it.  "Here 
take  notice  that  Paul  compares  the  gospel  to  a  seed 
sown;  he  planted.  Who  told  Peter  Edwards  that  in 
Rom.  vi.  5.  he  used  the  word,  not  having  any  refer- 
ence to  seeds?  This  he  must  have  found  in  his  own 
lexicon;  for  it  is  no  where  else.  He  says,  "  that  as 
the  apostle  calls  baptism  a  planting,  he  must  allude 
to  the  mode  in  which  that  ordinance  was  adminis- 
tered: and  every  one,  who  is  at  all  acquainted  with 
the  art  of  planting,  will  easily  guess,  what  kind  of 
mode  that  must  be,  to  which  it  alludes."  Well,  I 


146  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

am  as  well  acquainted  with  planting,  for  sixty  years, 
as  the  most  of  my  neighbours,  and  I  will  tell  you  all 
about  the  art  of  planting.  In  the  first  place,  prepare 
the  ground  well,  then  open  it  with  a  plough  or  a  hoe; 
put  the  seed  in  the  ground;  then  cover  it  well  all 
over.  This  is  the  mode  we  plant  Indian  corn,  pota- 
toes or  peas.  We  never  sprinkle  earth  on  the  seeds, 
but  cover  them  well  all  over;  and  we  raise  very  good 
crops  this  way.  But  perhaps  Peter  would  tell  me, 
the  term  don't  refer  to  seeds,  but  to  planting  trees. 
Who  told  you  this?  It  is  at  best  a  guess;  for  you 
cannot  prove  it.  It  is  not  very  probable:  if  you  read 
the  parable  of  the  sower,  and  1  Cor.  iii.  6.  perhaps 
you  will  think  otherwise.  I  am  well  acquainted  with 
planting  trees;  and  I  am  no  ways  afraid  of  Goliath  on 
that  head.  The  mode  I  plant  trees  is,  first,  I  dig  a 
hole;  and  after  putting  the  roots  of  the  tree  in  the 
hole,  I  carefully  with  a  hoe  draw  the  earth  all  over 
the  roots  a  suitable  depth;  but  I  never  sprinkle 
earth  on  the  top;  for  when  we  plant  trees,  we  never 
mean  that  we  plant  the  top.  Now,  Peter,  I  have  not 
guessed  at  the  mode  of  planting  seeds  and  trees;  but 
I  do  not  belie\'e  the  term  refers  to  trees;  but  take  it 
which  way  you  wiU,  it  gives  no  assistance  to  Peter's 
cause;  for  every  thing  that  is  planted  is  covered  all 
over.  So  in  planting  us  in  the  likeness  of  Christ's 
death,  we  are  covered  all  over  in  the  water.  Peter 
committed  a  blunder  in  using  this  text;  for  it  is  like 
all  the  rest:  it  will  not  support  his  cause.  The  phrase 
appears  to  me,  to  be  metaphorical;  and  metaphors 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  147 

will  not  agree  in  every  point.  The  argument  seems 
to  me  to  be  this;  for  if  we  have  been,  by  baptism, 
planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  and  our 
old  man  vi^as  buried  with  him;  we  should  live  ia 
newness  of  life,  that  is  in  the  likeness  of  his  resur* 
rection.  Hence  saith  the  apostle,  "  if  ye  be  risen  with 
Christ,  seek  those  things  which  are  above."  Col.  iii, 
1.  How  careful  should  every  baptized  person  be  to 
live  in  newness  of  life.  Dead  indeed  unto  sm,  but 
alive  unto  God,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Leaving  the  whimsical  interpretation  of  Peter 
on  his  planting  to  himself;  for  I  think  no  other  per- 
son will  receive  it;  I  come  to  consider  him  on  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  here  I  must  ac* 
knowledge,  I  do  not  know  distinctly  what  he  means,. 
It  is  a  shameful  thing  to  distort  any  man's  meaning 
to  suit  our  purpose.  I  think,  if  I  do  understand 
him,  he  means  regeneration,  and  the  extraordinary 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  if  this  is  his  meaning, 
he  is,  in  my  opinion,  very  wrong:  but  he  is  not 
alone;  because  the  subject  has  not  been  properly  in- 
vestigated; and  therefore  it  is  only  too  common,  to 
call  regeneration  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
My  reasons,  why  we  are  not  to  understand,  by  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost,  regeneration,  is,  first,  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  not  come  on  the  disciples  before 
the  day  of  pentecost;  and  we  arc  sore  they  were  re- 
generated before;  for  Christ  said,  '"  And  ye  are 
clean,  but  not  all;  for  he  knew  who  should  betray 
him;    therefore    he    said.    Ye  are   not  all   clean.^- 

17 


14g  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

John  xiii.  10,  11.  None  can,  in  a  religious  sense,  be 
said  to  be  clean,  who  are  not  washed  with  the  wash- 
ing of  regeneration;  but  the  disciples  were  said  to 
be  clean;  therefore  they  were  regenerated  before  the 
day  of  pentecost.  Regeneration  is  essential  to  salva- 
tion; but  if  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  meant  rege- 
neration, then  all  who  died  before  that  day  of  pente- 
cost,  died  unregenerated;  consequently  they  all  per- 
ished. Now  can  any  living  creature  believe  this?  I 
think  not;  consequently  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
doth  not  mean  regeneration,  or  even  sanctification. 
There  is  but  one  passage  that  countenances  the  senti- 
ment: and  that  is  not  sufficient  when  no  other  passage 
establishes  it;  because  no  scripture  is  of  private  inter- 
pretation.  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  Here  this  passage  maybe 
considered  as  putting  the  effect  for  the  cause;  and  I 
think  this,  or  something  like  it,  is  the  meaning  of  the 
passage.  There  are  two  other  passages  similar  to 
this,  which  we  will  consider.  Rom.  vi.  3.  "  Know 
ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Je- 
sus Christ,"  he.  Here  I  think   it  will  be  scarcely 
disputed  that  by  being  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ, 
is  meant  that  in  their  baptism  they,  by  that  act,  pub- 
licly professed  themselves  belonging  to  that  body,  of 
which  Christ  is  the  head.   They  put  on  a  profession 
of  Christ.,  The  other  passage  is  similar.  Gal.  iii.  27. 
For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ,  have  put  on  Christ,  that  is,  professed  to  be- 
long to  Christ,  in  contradistinction  to  Jewism   or 
Heathenism.  The  words  1  Cor,  xii.  13.    "  Bv  one 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  149 

spirit  they  were  fitted  for  baptism,  and  were  baptized 
into  that  one  body  of  which  Christ  is  head."  It  ap- 
pears to  me,  that  in  this  place,  baptism  is  used  in  its 
literal  sense  for  immersion  in  water,  and  cannot  mean 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  I  have  made  evi- 
dent that  that  did  not  mean  regeneration,  because  the 
disciples  were  regenerated  before  the  day  of  pente- 
cost,  but  were  not  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
till  that  time. 

2.  With  respect  to  the  second  exception  of  the 
word,  it  is  a  general  opinion  that  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  meant  the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  This  carries  more  appearance  of  truth  than  the 
other;  and  yet  I  do  not  think  it  is  clear;  because  most 
of  these  gifts  were  conferred  on  the  disciples  before 
that  day  of  pentecost,  yet  they  were  not  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost.  This  appeai-s,  Matt.  x.  1.  "  And  when 
he  had  called  unto  him  his  twelve  disciples,  he  gave 
them  power  over  unclean  spirits,  to  cast  them  out, 
and  to  heal  all  manner  of  sickness,  and  all  manner 
of  disease."  Now  what  appeared,  in  respect  to  gifts, 
more  than  they  possessed  before,  on  the  day  of  pen- 
tecost, except  speaking  with  tongues?  And  was 
this  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost?  It  is  certain  none 
have  it  now,  nor  do  we  read  of  any  before;  but  be- 
fore they  began  to  speak  with  tongues,  it  is  said, 
they  were  all Jilled  with  the  Holy  Ghost;  which  I  take 
to  be  distinct  from  the  immersion  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  has  appeared  to  me,  for  many  years  past,  to 
mean  something  external  and  nothing  internal. 


J50  CANDID  REASONS  EXAxMlNED. 

Peter  Edwards  seems  to  dislike  any  quotation  from 
a  quaker;  but  I  would  as  soon  receive  the  truth Trom 
a  quaker  as  from  any  other  man.  I  will  transcribe  the 
opinion  of  Thomas  Elwood,  in  his  Sacred  History, 
vol.  3.  page  344,  345.  He  says  on  the  passage,  '*  This 
was  a  thorough  baptism.  They  were  now  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  indeed;  and  that  in  the  spirit  an^ 
]proper  sense  of  the  word  baptize,  which  signifies  to 
dip,  plunge  or  put  under;  for  they  were  truly  dipped, 
or  plunged  into  the  Holy  Ghost.  They  were  brought 
wholly  under  it,  and  into  complete  subjection  to  it, 
so  that  it  was  not  only  in  them,  but  over,  and  did 
cover  them  throughout."  This  quaker  is  honest; 
and  decides,  without  being  interested  in  the  dispute, 
that  to  baptize  is  to  dip  or  plunge,  or  cover  over; 
that  they  were  covered  externally  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  It  has  been  my  opinion  for  some  years,  that 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  external;  and  that 
in  the  fourth  verse,  '^  filled  with  the  HolyGhost,"  was 
something  superior  and  distinct  from  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  The  statement  in  Acts  ii.  always 
struck  me  that  it  was  something  external  that  filled 
all  the  house.  Peter  Edwards  has  much  abused  the 
knowledge  he  has  in  Greek,  by  his  ridiculous  re- 
marks on  ^;^of.  The  word  is  used  but  a  few  times 
in  the  New  Testament.  I  have  observed  it  in  three 
|>laces;  and  in  two  of  them  it  means  properly  sound, 
ytX.tr  Edwards  doth  not  know  that  that  word  was 
then  used  for  reverberating  noise.  It  is  very  shame- 
ful for  3By  maj)  to  treat  the  holy  scripture  with  such. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  151 

levity  and  vanity  as  he  does.  This  sound  had  some- 
thing that  made  it,  and  that  was  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  (wfTTTg^)  like  as  a  rushing  mighty  rush- 
ing, and  that  is  what  filled  all  the  house.  The  pronoun 
it  is  not  in  the  Greek;  and  the  words  read  as  well, 
"  and  filled  all  the  house."  Now  if  the  house  was 
filled,  and  they  were  in  the  house,  surrounded  with  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  were  immersed  in 
him;  and  this  will  appear  to  every  serious  mind,  not- 
withstanding  all  the  attempts  of  Peter  Edwards,  to 
render  the  scriptures  ridiculous.  The  phrase  upon 
seems  to  denote  something  external.  Acts  xi.  15.  the 
Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them.  The  Greek  preposition 
«7ri  is  here  used,  which  properly  signifies  upouy  but 
seldom,  or  never  into;  but  I  said,  it  was  my  opinion 
that  the  phrase,  *'  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  signified 
something  distinct  from  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  My  reasons  are  that  that  phrase  was  used  be- 
fore the  day  of  pentecost.  Luke  i.  41.  "  Elizabeth 
was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  And  in  v.  67.  "  and 
his  Father  Zacharias  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  prophesied."  Acts  iv.  31.  "  And  they  were  all 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  they  spake  the  word 
of  God  with  boldness."  I  believe  there  is  no  instance, 
where  it  is  said  the  same  persons  were  said  to  be 
twice  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  conse* 
quence  was,  they  spake  the  word  of  God,  with  bold- 
ness, and  Zacharias  prophesied.  And  to  this  day, 
when  we  are  in  a  right  condition  to  preach,  we 
are  filled  with  the  Spirit.  Eph.  v.  18.  vi.  18.  Mr. 


152  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

Booth  bringing  the  electric  fluid  as  an  illustration  is 
extremely  suitable,  nor  has  Peter  Edwards  made  it 
to  appear  otherwise. 

I  must  not  dismiss  this  subject,  without  some  re- 
marks on  Peter  Edwards's  attempt  to  mislead,  deceive 
and  impose  upon  the  unlearned  reader,  by  reading 
every  passage  referring  to  the  baptism  in  an  unwar- 
ranted manner,  page  153,  154.  In  page  136,  that  ev 
means  not  only  m,  but  nigh,  near,  at,  by.  In  page^ 
136,  it  suited  him,  in  order  to  quibble  about  the  place 
in  which  baptism  was  performed,  to  say,  that  «v 
meant  not  only  m,  but  nigh,  near,  at,  by.  He  knows 
very  well,  that  the  same  preposition  (ev)  is  used  in 
every  place  where  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  mentioned.  Matt.  iii.  11.  gv  7Tvivy,(x,ri  dyiu.  Seven 
more  places  are  selected;  and  in  all  these  the  preposi- 
tion €v  is  used;  but  in  none  of  them  does  it  mean 
properly  zvith;  the  preposition  cw  in  Greek,  is  used 
for  with,  and  not  gv.  It  is  true  the  translators,  to 
favour  the  common  practice,  have  rendered  it  so;  but 
this  is  not  the  primary  meaning,  which  is  plain  to 
all  who  are  acquainted  with  Greek.  Quibblers  ought 
to  have  good  memories.  Inpage  136,  in  order  to  evade 
the  evidence  in  favour  of  immersion,  in  the  instance 
of  the  place  where  they  baptized,  (sv  tw  la^Scivvi)  in 
Jordan.  Here  gv  means  not  only  in,  but  nigh,  near, 
at,  by.  Peter  must  not  think  to  pass  with  impunity, 
when  he  makes  a  nose  of  wax  of  the  preposition  €v, 
and  when  it  suits  him  to  baffle  the  truth,  it  must  sig- 
nify -with.  Stop,  Peter,  scripture  is  not  to  be  twisted  as 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  153 

it  suits  you.  That  you  may  feel  remorse  and  shame, 
we  will  try  how  the  scripture  will  read  corrected  ac- 
cording to  your  mind;  and  in  order  to  do  this,  we 
will  consider  each  passage.  I  will  first  give  my  trans- 
lation; and  I  am  not  afraid  but  every  Greek  scholar 
will  acknowledge  that  the  Greek  will  bear  my  trans- 
lation. Matt.  iii.  11.  I  indeed  immerse  you  m  water, 
same  v.  He  shall  immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Peter's  correction:  I  indeed  baptize  you,  nigh,  near, 
at,  by  water.  Perhaps  he  used  no  water  in  baptism;  for 
Robinson  says  the  Irish  used  milk  formerly.  Mark  i. 
8.  I  indeed  have  immersed  you  in  water;  but  he  shall 
Immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  Peter's  correction: 
I  baptize  you,  nigh,  near,  at,  by  water;  but  he  shall 
baptize  you,  nigh,  near,  at,  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Now 
had  he  graciously  condescended  to  tell  us  what  /3»7r- 
T<^«  meant,  we  could  translate  the  scripture  nearer 
to  his  new  correction.  But  here  he  dare  not  fix;  he 
therefore  says,  it  signifies  to  wash,  pour,  or  sprinkle. 
Another  nose  of  wax;  it  may  be  twisted  to  any  shape. 
We  will  try  it  this  way,  I  indeed  wash,  pour,  sprinkle 
you,  nigh,  near,  at,  by  water.  He  shall  wash,  pour, 
vsprinkle  you,  nigh,  near,  at,  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  For 
berevity's  sake,  I  will  omit  my  translation,  which  is 
correct  in  every  place;  and  only  give  Peter  Edwards's. 
Luke.  iii.  16.  I  irxdeed,  wash,  pour,  sprinkle  you, 
nigh,  near,  at,  by  water.  Same  verse.  He  shall  wash, 
pour,  sprinkle  you, nigh,  near,  at,  by,  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  remaining  part  of  the  eight  passages  may  be  read 
the  same  wav;  thev  are  therefore  omitted.  The  reader 


154  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

may  apply  Peter's  new  mode  of  reading  the  scrip, 
tures,  and  see  how  much  the  world  is  indebted  to  him 
for  a  new  method  of  translation.  Peter  goes  on,  in 
page  134,  to  make  his  improvement  of  the  eight 
passages  above  mentioned. 

He  now  says,  as  if  he  had  acted  honestly,  **  the 
question  is,  to  what  mode  of  baptism  will  the  pre- 
position with,  which  is  used  in  these  eight  places, 
agree?  Stop,  Peter,  you  are  a  little  too  fast:  the  pre- 
position with  is  not  used  in  any  of  the  eight  places. 
The  preposition  gv  is  used  in  every  place;  which, 
you  say,  besides  m,  means  nigh^  near^  at,  by.  The, 
Greek  preposition,  which  properly  means  with,  is 
tf-uv;  which  is  not  used  in  any  one  of  these  places.  By 
taking  the  paragraph,  the  question  is  to  what  mode  of 
pouring  wull  the  preposition  ev,  i,  e.  in,  which  is  used 
in  these  eight  places,  agree?  Peter  has  followed  our 
present  translation,  where  with  is  used  to  accom- 
modate the  translation  to  the  superstitious  practice 
of  England,  at  that  time;  but  in  the  Greek  it  is  not 
with,  but  171.  And  I  have  made  it  evident  that  ev  is 
used  to  mean  m  one  hundred  and  eighty -four  times 
in  the  evangelist  Matthew;  yet  Peter  Edwards  has 
the  superlative  modesty  to  impose  on  the  unlearned 
by  perverting  the  Greek,  by  trying  to  deceive  them 
by  the  preposition  with,  which  is  not  there  to  be 
found  in  the  Greek.  What  a  miserable  cause  must 
that  be,  which  tempts  men  to  use  such  mean  shifts! 
The  judicious  reader  will  easily  see  how  to  answer 
the  remaining  part  of  this  page.  I  proceed  to  consider 


CANDID  REASONS  KXAMINED.  155 

page  155.  where  he  says,  ''  there  is  one  subterfuge, 
which  I  must  guard  against,  that  the  baptists  may^ 
be  left  entirely  defenceless.  They  coritend,  that  the 
Greek  preposition  sv  is  used  in  most  of  these  passages, 
and  should  have  been  translated  in  cr  ■hito.''''  Here  are 
two  little  mistakes  in  this  representation  of  the  bap- 
tists' sentiments.  Stop,  Peter,  I  will  put  you  right. 
The  baptists  say  in  all  ihese  places  the  Greek  prepo- 
sition iv  is  used,  and  should  have  been  translated  in; 
but  the  baptists  understand  Greek  too  well  to  say  ev 
should  be  translated  into;  for  when  into  is  intended, 
the  Greeks  use  ng.  Those  observations  convict  Peter 
of  two  broad  falsehoods;  for  the  baptists  do  not  sa}^ 
in  most  of  these  passages,  the  preposition  iv  is  used; 
but  thev  say  in  all  it  is  used;  and  should  have  been 
translated  in,  and  not  into.  Peter  is  going  to  leave 
the  baptists  entirely  defenceless,  and  I  suppose  ruin 
their  cause  foreA^er,  Peter  says,  he  has  two  small  ob- 
jections, (i.  e.)  to  the  way  the  baptists  understand 
iv  in  the  passages  above  mentioned.  Well  let  us  hear 
them:  "  It  would  make  the  passages  ridiculous;  and 
be  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God."  These  are  high 
charges:  let  us  see  how  he  will  prove  them.  1.  Ridi- 
culous. Matt.  iii.  11.  I  baptize  you  ev  vSccri  in  or 
into  water. — Stop,  I  must  put  you  right;  the  baptists 
never  say  ev  means  i?ito,  but  in.  Go  on. — But  he  shall 
baptize  sv  7rvgu^«.T<  in  or  into  the  Ploiy  Ghost.  Now 
as  Peter  has  corrected  all  that  ever  went  before  him, 
w^e  will  read  the  words   accordirjp-  to  Peter's  new 

o 

m.ode  of  reading,  viz.  I  wash,  pour,  sprinkle  you^ 


T 

156  CANDID  ilL:ASONS  EXAMINED. 

nigh,  near,  at,  by,  water;  but  he  shall  vrash,  pour, 
sprinkle  you,  nigh,  near,  at,  by  tlie  Holy  Ghost. 
Now,  honest  reader,  which  of  these  wa}s  of  reading 
looks  most  ridiculous?  I'he  baptists'  w^ay  of  read- 
ing is,  ''I  immerse  3'ou  in  ^vater;  but  he  shall  im- 
merse you  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  \A^hen  I  used  the 
words  nigh,  n«ar,  at,  by,  I  do  not  mean  the  reader 
should  use  the  four  words;  but  he  ma}'  select  which 
he  pleases,  and  abide  by  it.  Neither  do  I  mean  thai 
he  should  use,  wash,  pour,  sprinkle,  only  any  one, 
and  abide  by  that  word,  and  not  fly  about  from  one 
term  to  another,  as  may  suit  his  turn  best. 

What  argument  has  he  used  to  sho'w  that  the 
way  in  which  the  baptists  understood  the  Greek 
preposition  ev  is  wrong?  A  very  short  argument:  he 
says  ridiculous  enough!  Is  this  all  the  argument  that 
this  unparalleled  Grecian,  this  superlative  logician, 
could  brinsr?  I  think  this  is  ridiculous  enous:h. 

Let  us  hear  him  on  the  second  objection,  which  is, 
that  our  way  of  understanding  the  preposition,  "  is  re- 
pugnant to  the  word  of  God."  I  should  think  this 
to  be  a  very  weighty  objection;  but  Peter  perhaps 
is  so  used  to  give  expositions  evidently  repugnant 
to  the  word  of  God,  that  it  is  but  a  small  thing  with 
him.  However  it  will  do  him  no  harm  to  remember, 
that  it  is  said,  for  every  idle  word  that  men  shall 
speak,  they  shall  give  account  thereof  in  the  da}-  of 
judgment.  But  w^hat  makes  our  sense  of  ev  so  re- 
pugnant? Why,  because  the  scripture  says,  when 
ipeaking  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  fell  on  them.   Then 


CANDID  REASOinS  EXAMINED..  157 

we  should  read  the  scripture  according  to  this  new 
mode, — viz.  baptize  you  on  water;  but  you  shall  be 
baptized  on  the  Holy  Ghost.  Ridiculous  enough! 

To  close  this  subject,  and  speak  a  little  more 
serious:  I  think  nothing  should  be  said  to  be  ridicu- 
lous, or  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God,  when  it  is 
explicitly  contained  in  the  holy  scriptures.  I  am 
son-}'  that  Peter  Edwards  pays  so  little  regard  to  the 
holy  scriptures,  and  uses  so  much  sophistry  to  be- 
wilder the  lambs  of  Christ,  and  make  the  hearts  of 
those  sad,  which  the  Lord  would  not  have  made  sad. 
U  Peter  Edwards  w^ouid  read  the  following  texts,  in 
which  the  very  phrase  is  used,  perhaps  he  would 
not  ever  be  so  ready  hereafter  to  pronounce  the  idea 
ridiculous.  John  iv.  24.  "God  is  a  Spirit,  and  they 
that  worsliip  him,  must  worship  him  (sv  7rvsu^uaT<) 
in  spirit  and  in  truth."  Rom.  xiv.  17.  "The  king- 
dom of  God  is  not  meat  and  drink;  but  ris;hteous- 
ness  and  peace,  and  joy  ('gv  nvauwair;  dytu)  in  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Rev.  i.  10.  "  I  was  in  the  Spirit,  (ev 
rvivf^ioiri)  on  the  Lord's  day.  Chap.  iv.  2.  And  imme- 
diately, I  was  (sv  7rv2up«Ti)  in  the  Spirit."  Let  this  suf- 
fice to  make  it  evident  that  "in  the  Spirit"  is  a  scrip- 
tural phrase;  nor  is  there  any  thing  unscriptural,  nor 
ridiculous,  in  saying  the  disciples  were  immersed  in 
the  Spirit  on  the  day  of  pentecost. 

Peter  Edwards  has  only  one  sentence  mere  on 
the  mode  of  baptism;  and  it  would  have  been  much 
better  for  hini  that  he  had  never  written  it;  for  he 
closes  his  subject  with  a  falsehood.   I  will  transcribe 


153  (-^  -'^  N  DID  R i:  ASO .\  S  EX  A M  i N  KD . 

the  passage,  and  then  show  the  falsehood,  viz.  "  To 
remove  that  which  is  ridiculous,  and  repugnant, 
tlicre  is  one  desperate  shift  for  a  fahing  system — 
what  is  that?  It  is  this:  iv  joined  to  water,  must 
be  ??i  or  mfo;  iv  joined  to  Spirit  must  be  with. 
Desperate  shift  indeed!  This  is  a  wretched  prop  for 
a  ruined  system.  Only  such  can  need  it."*  Peter 
Edwards  represents  the  baptists  in  England,  to  be  a 
set  of  ignorant  people,  scarcely  knowing  any  thing. 
Indeed  they  seem  as  pliant  as  wax;  they  can  be 
t\^'isted  any  wa}-,  which  suits  Peter's  wishes.  After 
all,  I  question  v.hether  he  can  produce  a  baptist  au- 
thor in  England,  who  ever  said,  ev  joined  to  water, 
must  be  7?ito.  No,  the  baptists  say  it  must  be  ren- 
dered /;/,  in  itself,  not  i/ito:  they  know  the  preposi- 
tion £<?  is  rendered  tJito,  in  one  hundred  and  nine  places 
in  Matthew";  and  that  «v  in  the  same  evangelist,  in 
one  hundred  and  eighty-four  places  is  rendered  /';/, 
plainly  i?i.  2.  I  question  whether  Peter  Edwards  can 
produce  one  author  in  England,  who  ever  said,  that 
iv,  joined  with  spirit,  nuist  be  luith.  They  know  bet- 
ter; they  know  the  word  ivit/i  is  not  in  the  Greek. 
Ev  ,was  rendered  xuith,  designedly  to  favour  paedo- 
rantism;  and  for  the  same  reason  ficcTrncrfxoc  and  /3«7r- 
Tt^oo  have  not  been  translated  into  our  language;  but 
in  other  languages,  where  translators  were  left  to 
their  own  judgment,  the  word  is  translated  dip  or 
immerse.  I  have  seen  the  translations  of  three  lan- 

*  Candid  Ileasons,  pnge  156. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  159 

giuiges,  in  which  the  word  is  rendered  d'lp^  viz.  the 
High  Dutch,  the  Low  Dutch,  and  the  Welsh.  In 
Matt,  xxviii.  19.  the  Welsh  word  bedijddio^  and  in 
Mark  i.  5.  w^here  it  is  said,  "  And  were  baptized," 
tlie  Welsh  is  bedyddioxvyd.  I  have  conversed  with 
man}-  good  judges  in  the  Welsh  language,  who  say 
the  term  means  dip.  And  all  know  it  means  so  in 
the  High  and  Low  Dutch. 

Peter  Edwards  closes  the  subject  by  saying,  "  A. 
desperate  shift  indeed!  This  is  a  wretched  prop  for 
a  ruined  system.  Only  such  can  need  it."*"  Wretched 
prop  as  it  may  be,  it  is  one  that  was  never  used  by 
the  baptists;  at  least  I  never  knew  it  to  be  used.  I 
believed  it  to  be  a  designed  misstatement,  fabricated 
in  Peter  Edwards's  own  brains.  Must  not  that  be  a 
ruined  systeni,  which  forces  men  to  prevarication, 
and  false  statements  of  their  antagonists'  sentiments? 
Only  such  can  need  it;  and  only  such  will  use  it. 
Should  the  pasdorantists  wish  to  ruin  the  baptists' 
system,  it  would  be  prudent  in  them  to  fix  on  some 
person,  more  like  a  christian  and  a  gentleman  than 
Peter  Edwiirds;  for  he  has  treated  the  holy  scrip 
tures  in  such  a  vain  manner,  the  serious  reader  must 
see,  that  the  cause  of  Christ  could  never  require 
such  means  to  support  it.  I  informed  a  presbyterian 
minister,  who  is  a  worthy  friend  of  mine,  that  I  in 
tended  to  answer  Peter  Edwards.  He  advised  me 
not  to  catch  his  spirit.  I  am  afraid  he  will  think  I 

'  Caiuiid  Ker.sons,  page  I'C 


# 


160  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

have  not  kept  altogether  clear.  I  confess!  have  co- 
pied some  of  his  language  to  pay  him  m  his  own 
coin. 

If  Peter  Edwards's  pamphlet  doth  not  induce 
some  of  the  learned  to  embrace  the  baptists'  senti- 
ments, I  must  conclude  the  prejudices  of  education 
are  almost  invincible.  But  as  paedorantism  is  a  pan 
and  pillar  of  antichrist,  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  man 
utterly  to  destroy  it;  for  this  is  to  be  done  by  the 
powerful  v/ork  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  according  to 
2  Thess.  ii.  8.  Were  men  to  lay  aside  vain  jangling, 
and  apply  to  the  God  of  heaven,  to  be  taught  by  him 
and  led  into  all  truth,  all  controversies  on  this  subject 
Vv'ould  soon  be  at  an  end,  and  all  Christ's  disciples 
would  come  into  the  unity  of  the  faith;  and  churches 
of  Christ  would  be  formed  of  such  materials  as  the 
apostle  Peter  described,  when  he  said,  "  Ye  also,  as 
lively  stones,  are  built  up  a  spiritual  house,  an  holy 
priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable 
to  God  by  Jesus  Christ."  1  Pet.  ii.  5. 

I  am  astonished  why  there  is  so  much  noise 
about  infant  membership,  and  infant  baptism,  when 
at  the  same  time  no  one  treats  them  as  members. 
They  treat  them  as  the  world  in  common,  and 
no  better.  I  never  knew  any  church  discipline  to 
use  them  as  church  members.  It  appears  to  me  very 
like  quakers'  sentiments.  They  are  born  members; 
and  I  believe  some  kind  of  discipline  exercised  on 
them,  if  they  marry  out  of  meeting.  It  is  a  capital 
crime  amonj;  them;  for  which  they  must  be  excluded. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  161 

Tlie  presbyterians  are  liberal  on  this  subject:  they 
allow  their  young  people  to  make  their  own  choice 
without  any  censure:  in  this  they  act  becoming; 
christians;  but  nevertheless  baby  sprinkling  is  a 
ereat  something  with  the  most  of  them.  What  g-ood 
it  doth,  they  do  not  tell  us:  vv^e  want  scripture  for  it. 
We  are  put  off  with  an  old  tale  about  Abraham  cir- 
cumcising himself  and  children.  If  v/e  tell  them  that 
is  nothing  to  the  purpose,  for  God  commanded  him 
so  to  do;  but  where  is  the  command  to  baptize 
children?  the  most  learned  boggle,  and  can  find 
none.   Ail  we  can  get  are  unjust  inferences. 

After  all  Peter  Edwards's  vaporing  on  the  sub- 
ject, he  condescends  to  tell  some  truth  on  the  sub- 
ject; therefore  he  says,  "  I  do  not  suppose  that  in- 
fants, properly  speaking,  receive  any  present  benefit 
by  being  baptized.  But  that  this  is  designed  the 
more  to  engage  the  attention  of  parents  and  others  to 
the  rising  generation.""^  But  all  pasdorantists  are  not 
of  this  opinion;  for  too  many  seem  to  believe  it 
contains  some  kind  of  a  religious  charm  ^  and  binds 
God  to  do  what  he  otherwise  would  not  liave  done, 
only  for  this  charm.  If  this  is  not  the  opinion  of  the 
Rev.  Samuel  Stanhope  Smith,  D.  D.  or  something 
worse,  I  am  mistaken.  He  says,  when  speaking  on 
the  subject  of  infant  baptism,  "  You  behold  its  ori- 
ginal  guilt  covered  by  the  merit  of  the  atonement,  "f 
Again  he  says,  in  a  note  at  the  bottom  of  the  next 

"' Criridi'l  T?ensrKi=.  rar*"  J-56  |  Sprir.on on  Baptism,  pjge  31. 


162  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

page,  "  Yet  I  scruple  not  to  say,  that  original  guilt 
is  so  covered  by  the  blood  of  the  atonement  symbol- 
ized in  this  ordinance,  that  its  condemning  power, 
at  least  with  regard  to  baptized  infants,  dying  in 
infancy,  is  destroyed  by  the  grace  of  the  new  cove- 
nant." Can  any  man  in  his  senses  reconcile  the  jar- 
ring opinions  of  these  two  men?  Peter  Edwards 
said,  "  I  do  not  suppose  that  infants,  properly  speak- 
ing, receive  any  present  benefit  by  being  baptized." 
But  the  other  learned  gentleman,  a  doctor  of  di^'i- 
nity,  conceives  the  present  benefits  swelling  beyond 
all  truth  and  decency,  ^'iz.  "  Yet  I  scruple  not  to 
say,  that  original  guilt  is  so  covered  by  the 
blood  of  atonement."  Had  this  been  written  by  a 
Jesuit  priest,  I  would  not  have  been  surprised;  but 
to  come  from  a  presbyterian  minister,  a  president  of 
a  college,  is  mipardonable.  Could  Baronius  or  Bellar- 
mine  have  said  more?  If  this  is  passed  over  by  pres- 
byterians,  they  had  better  at  once  return  to  the  whore 
of  Babylon;  for  transubstantiation  is  not  more  abo- 
minable than  this  sentiment.  I  hope,  for  the  honour 
of  the  society,  it  originated  in  Mr.  Smith's  own 
brains;  and  it  is  a  pity  it  had  not  remained  there. 
If  I  keep  in  the  same  mind,  which  I  now  have,  this 
gentleman  shall  hear  from  me  on  the  subject. 

I  now  return  to  Peter  Edwards:  he  assigns  what 
he  supposes  to  be  a  reason  of  christening  infants, 
although  they  receive  no  present  benefit.  And  a 
ciu'ious  reason  it  is,  "  This  is  designed  the  more 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  163 

to  engage  the  attention  of  parents,  and  others  to  the 
rismg  generation." 

By  this  statement,  it  seems  the  scriptures  con- 
nected with  natural  affections  are  not  sufficient  to 
engage  the  stupid  parents  to  discharge  their  duty; 
but  pouring  a  little  water  in  a  child's  face,  without 
any  authority  from  scripture,  has  a  mighty  influence 
on  the  parents,  to  engage  them  to  discharge  their 
duty,  in  bringing  up  the  chidren  in  the  fear,  nurture, 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  But  what  is  a  little  ex- 
traordinary, the  parents  often  are  the  servants  of  sin 
themselves;  and  thus  engaging  affairs  makes  no 
change  on  them.  Well  how  is  it  with  the  children, 
who  are  rantized?  Are  they  better  than  their  neigh- 
bours in  their  morals?  Facts  say  they  are  not.  Pas- 
dorantists'  children,  and  baptists'  children  are  all  the 
servants  of  sin,  till  changed  by  sovereign  grace, 
neither  limited  nor  directed  by  water.  It  is  good  to 
train  up  a  child  in  the  way  he  should  go;  for  it  often 
prevents  a  profligate  life,  but  not  always;  for  good 
parents  frequently  have  bad  children.  I  will  venture 
to  affirm,  that  if  directions  from  scripture,  combined 
with  the  powerful  influence  of  natural  affections,  do 
not  engage  parents  to  perform  their  duty,  not  all  the 
waters  in  Jordan  will  do  it,  used  in  what  manner  you 
please.  Perhaps  I  will  make  it  appeajr,  before  I 
finally  dismiss  the  subject,  that  sprinkling  children 
can  be  attended  with  no  good,  and  sometimes  with 
very  bad  consequences.  But  I  now  return  to  finish 
niy  remarks  on  Peter  EdwJtrds's  attempts  to  evade 


164  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

and  pervert  the  truth.  After  wasting  a  page  and  a 
half,  he  considers  the  commission.  Matt,  xxviii.  19.* 
Here  it  seems  the  translators  not  understanding  the 
Greek  word  f^oc^yiTiva-xn  rendered  it,  "  Teach  all 
nations."  Our  author  thought  this  seemed  too  fa- 
vourable to  the  baptists,  who  teach  before  they  bap- 
tize, therefore  it  must  be  rendered  *'  Disciple  all 
nations."  His  object  was  to  give  an  opportunity  to 
display  his  learning  and  art  of  criticising,  by  show- 
ing persons  may  be,  somehow,  made  disciples, 
without  teaching,  and  so  include  babies.  One  re- 
mark, before  I  proceed  to  investigate,  I  beg  leave 
to  make,  viz.  I  defy  Peter  Edwards  or  any  other 
man  to  produce  one  instance  in  the  scriptures,  or  in 
the  ancient  fathers,  or  in  heathen  authors,  in  which 
disciples  were  made  any  other  way,  than  by  teach- 
ing or  instruction. 

The  word  always  implies  teaching  or  instruc- 
tion. And  though  inadvertently,  this  he  has  owned 
himself,  when  he  said,  "  The  apostles  are  to  make 
disciples,"  that  is  all  fxuBryjiva-an  means. f  But 
doth  not  the  word  always  imply  teaching?  If  it  is 
used  otherwise,  I  would  thank  any  one  to  point  out 
the  place;  for  I  never  met  with  it  yet.  Peter  imme- 
diately adds  a  sentence,  which  will  effectually  ruin 
his  system  for  ever,  viz,  "  But  still  the  question  is, 
how  are  they  to  make  them?  I  answer  by  teaching; 
for  neither  adult  or  infant  can  be  made  a  disciple 

*  Csndid  Ileas(His,  page  158.  f  Candid  Reasons,  page  160. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  j[65 

"ivithout."  Well  said,  Peter.  I  will  form  a  syllogism 
on  the  subject,  viz.  None  can  be  made  disciples 
without  teaching;  infants,  who  know  not  any  lan- 
guage, cannot  be  taught;  therefore  infants  cannot 
be  made  disciples.  Peter,  in  displaying  his  superla- 
tive knowledge  in  logic,  did  not  consider  that  his 
antagonists  might  use  the  same  weapon  and  cut  him 
to  the  very  bone.  Let  him  try  to  refute  this  syllo- 
gism, or  as  an  honest  man  give  up  the  system  which 
he  has  ruined  himself.  Peter  tries  somehow  to  keep 
his  countenance  on  the  subject;  therefore  we  are 
amused  by  considering  infants  as  being  entered  into 
a  school  by  baptism.  This  whim  is  ridiculous 
enough,  not  substantiated  by  any  example  in  the 
world,  or  in  the  church. 

I  would  not  have  investigated  this  subject  so 
largely,  had  it  not  been,  that  many  writers  endea- 
vour to  pervert  this  passage  somehow  to  support 
their  dying  cause.  I  have  only  two  lexicons  by  me: 
and  both  agree,  that  jtAot9-j)Tguw,  means  to  teach  or  in- 
struct. Schrevilius  says,  it  means  doceo;  and  all  who 
are  acquainted  with  Latin,  know,  that  doceo  means 
to  teach.  Parkhurst  in  his  Greek  and  English,  says, 
y,oi,^Y\ri'oca  is  derived  from  fx»B-}^Ty]g,  which  is  derived 
from  the  obsolete  verb  [A-oiB-tico,  which  means  to  learn. 
When  jWfl49->)T£uw  governs  a  dative,  it  means  to  be  a 
disciple  to,  or  follower  of  another's  doctrine.  It  oc- 
curs in  Matt,  xxvii.  57.  He  says,  Plutarch  has 
used  it  in  the  same  sense.  He  adds,  when  it  governs 
an  accusative,  it  means  to  make  a  disciple:  in  this 


166  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED- 

sense  he  says  it  occurs  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  and  Acts 
xiv.  21.  The  first  is  the  very  passage  in  dispute. 
The  second,  Acts  xiv.  21.  I  will  transcribe,  "  And 
when  they  had  preached  the  gospel  to  that  city,  and 
taught  many."  The  word  translated  taught,  is  in 
Greek  |U.oi9-j;Teu(r5tvTgf.  And  they,  who  were  taught, 
are  in  the  next  verse  called  disciples.  "  Confirming 
the  souls  of  the  disciples,  and  exhorting  them  to 
continue  in  the  faith."  This  passage  is  in  point,  and 
cannot  be  made  plainer  by  comment.  That  is,  disci- 
ples meant  them  only  who  were  taught.  In  Matt. 
xxvii.  57.  it  is  said  of  Joseph,  who  also  himself  was 
Jesus's  disciple.  The  Greek  SjwaS-jjTgyo-g  is  here  trans- 
lated as  a  noun  substantive,  which  cannot  be  easily 
translated  into  English;  but  it  is  easy  to  see  that  Jo- 
seph was  so  taught  by  Jesus  as  to  become  his  fol- 
lower. 2.  I  am  to  produce  examples  in  scripture 
where  the  word  is  used  to  signify  to  teach.  In  Matt. 
V.  1.  it  is  said,  "  And  when  he  was  set,  his  disci- 
ples came  unto  him,  v.  2.  and  he  opened  his  mouth 
and  taught  them."  Here  it  is  very  plain,  that  those 
who  are  called  disciples  were  capable  of  being  taught, 
or  instructed.  "  He  opened  his  mouth  and  taught 
them."  This  passage  cannot  be  applied  to  little  in- 
fants. In  Matt.  X.  1.  it  is  said,  "  And  when  he  had 
called  unto  him  his  twelve  disciples,  he  gave  them 
power  against  unclean  spirits,  to  cast  them  out,  and 
to  heal  all  manner  of  sickness,"  &c.  In  this  passage 
no  dispute  can  arise  about  the  meaning  of  the  word 
Disciple.  It  meant  them  who  had  been  taught  by 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  167 

Christ  and  became  his  followers;  as  in  the  24th 
verse,  "  The  disciple  is  not  above  his  master." 
Matt.  xi.  2.  It  is  said,  "  John  sent  two  of  his 
disciples."  Who  were  his  disciples?  They  that 
were  taught  by  him.  And  in  John  iv.  1,  2.  we 
hare  a  text  in  point.  "  When  therefore  the  Lord 
knew,  how  the  pharisees  had  heard,  that  Jesus  made 
imd  baptized  more  disciples  than  John."  Two  things 
are  unanswerably  clear  from  this  passage,  viz.  That 
Jesus  made  disciples  before  they  were  baptized;  and 
this  corresponded  with  the  commission,  "  Go  teach 
all  nations;"  and  then  the  order  was  to  baptize^ 
None  in  the  apostles'  days  ever  heard  of  the  prepos- 
terous nonsense  of  making  disciples  by  baptism.  2. 
That  in  Christ's  time  the  disciples  were  qualified  to 
baptize.  Apply  this  to  infants,  and  nothing  can  be 
more  absurd.  See  Acts  vi.  1.  and  xiv.  22.  I  now 
challenge  any  one  to  produce  one  passage  in  the  New- 
Testament,  where  the  word  Disciple  is  used,  where 
the  person  was  not  previously  taught.  It  is  an  out- 
rage on  common  sense  for  any  to  affirm  that  a  child 
can  be  made  a  disciple,  not  directly,  but  indirectly, 
as  Peter  Edwards  has  said;*  for  the  nature  of  in- 
struction admits  of  no  substitute,  no  more  than  we 
can  admit  another  to  eat  as  a  substitute  for  us.  It  is 
certain  that  christians  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity 
never  heard  of  the  doctrine  of  making  disciples  indi- 
rectly, I  will  give  a  few  instances.  I  have  carefully 

'  randid  Reasons,  page  60. 


168  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

examined  ecclesiastical  history  on  this  subject;  and  I 
find  the  primitive  christians,  for  several  centuries,  had 
schools,  in  which  candidates  for  baptism  were  care- 
fully instructed  in  the  principles  of  the  christian  re- 
ligion, before  their  baptism.  The  candidates  were 
called  catechumens.  These  are  often  mentioned  in 
Mosheim's  ecclesiastical  historj-.  I  will  select  a  few 
instances,  out  of  many,  of  persons  being  catechu- 
mens, who  were  the  children,  not  only  of  christians, 
but  even  children  of  bishops.  The  father  of  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  was  a  bishop  of  a  church  of  Nazianzum, 
a  little  city  in  Cappadocia,  anno  325.  His  father 
gave  him  an  excellent  education  at  Athens  and  An- 
tioch.  While  he  was  at  Athens,  he  w'as  a  catechu- 
men, and  after  his  return  was  baptized,  being  near 
thirty  years  old.*  He  became  afterwards  archbishop 
of  Constantinople.  His  successor,  Nectarius,  was  a 
catechumen,  and  not  of  the  best  character,  and  was 
absolutely  elected  bishop,  before  he  was  baptized.f 
John  Clirysostom,  who  is  deemed  one  of  the  greatest 
among  the  fathers,  was  born  of  christian  parents:  he 
was  well  educated,  and  after  being  some  time  a  ca- 
techumen, was  baptized,  being  twenty -eight  years 
of  age.f  So  says  Montfaucon.  Joannes  xxviii.  annos 
natus  haptizatus  fuit .  The  same  author  says,  natus 
autem  esse  putatur  a?ino  347.  We  have  the  time  of 
his  birth,  and  the  time  of  his  baptism.  The  great 

*  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism,  page  68. 
f  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism,  page  69. 
i  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism,  page  69, 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  159 

John  Chrysostom  had  never  heard  that  any  one  could 
be  made  a  disciple  indirectly  by  baptism;  he  there- 
fore was  carefully  instructed  tliree  years  by  Meletius, 
bishop  of  Antioch,  previous  to  his  baptism.  I  might 
produce  many  more  instances  to  prove  that  people 
descending  from  christian  parents  were  catechumens 
for  years  previous  to  baptism;  but  I  shall  only  add 
one,  who  was  of  note  among  the  ancients.  That  is 
the  great  Basil.  He  was  born  about  329.  descend- 
ed from  opulent  families,  who  were  zealous  chris- 
tians for  several  generations  previous  to  his  birth. 
Some  of  them  had  suffered  martyrdom.  Basil  re- 
ceived a  liberal  education,  and  was  carefully  in- 
structed in  the  principles  of  Christianity,  by  Dianius, 
bishop  of  Caesarea,  and  baptized  in  the  28th  year  of 
his  age,  by  Dianius.*  I  would  have  given  all  the 
authors  quoted  by  Mr.  Robinson;  but  this  would 
have  enlarged  my  pamphlet  to  an  improper  size. 
Some  gentlemen  may  say,  they  have  never  seen  the 
History.  This  may  be  the  case;  but  among  others, 
Dr.  Staughton,  pastor  of  the  first  baptist  church  in 
Philadelphia,  has  one  copy;  and  I  am  persuaded,  he 
will  not  refuse  the  reading  of  it  to  any  gentleman. 

The  reader  will  pardon  this  digression,  as  it  was 
produced  only,  to  prove  that  the  ancients  knew  no- 
thing of  making  disciples  indirectly.  No,  they  had 
their  catechumens  instructed  many  years  before  their 
baptism.  Even  the  emperor  Constantine  was  a  ca- 

*  Robinson's  History  of  Bapti  sm,  page  70, 


170  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

techumen  many  years  before  his  baptism,  which  was 
administered  near  his  death.* 

I  shall  now  return  to  the  subject,  which  I  was 
considering,  which  was  to  demonstrate  that  the  an- 
jcient  fathers  used  the  word  jWotS-jjrguw  in  its  various 
terminations,  to  signify  teaching.  Origen  uses  the 
word  to  signify  to  teach  in  several  places,  f  The 
txposition  of  Faith,  attributed'  to  Justin,  J  uses  the 
word  in  the  same  sense.  I  find  the  same  word  used 
by  Eusebius;  and  what  is  called  the  apostolical  con- 
stitutions, though  not  written  by  the  apostles,  yet 
they  are  allowed  to  be  of  considerable  antiquity,  as 
well  as  Epiphanius,  all  use  the  word  to  signify  to 
teach.  I  have  all  the  quotations  in  full  before  me, 
which  I  would  have  transcribed,  only  it  would  have 
rendered  my  pamphlet  too  voluminovis. 

The  Latin  fathers  use  the  word  docete,  that  is  to 
teach  previous  to  baptism.  So  Tertullian  uses  it.§ 
Many  more  might  be  produced;  but  I  will  close  this 
subject  by  saying,  all  writings  of  the  ancients,  that 
I  have  met  with,  are  unanimous  in  their  sentiments, 
that  the  word  in  dispute  means  to  teach;  and  I  am 
of  opinion  that  no  man  can  show  us  where  it  is  used, 
when  infants  are  spoken  of. 

Should  any  reader  wish  a  fuller  investigation  of 
the  subject,  let  him  read  Dr.  Gale's  reflections  on 

*  Mosheim,  1  vol.  Ecclesiastical  History,  314. 

I  Comment  on  Matthew,  page  225,  and  contra  Celsum.  lib.  2,  p.  84. 

-i^  Expos.  Fidej,  pag;e  579. 

f  Tertiill.  prsr scrip,  hceretic  cap.  8.  and  cap.  20. 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  171 

Dr.  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  especially  his 
eighth  chapter,  in  which  this  point  is  put  beyond 
any  reasonable  objection. 

Dr.  Gale  has  considered  the  writings  of  all  the 
fathers,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  and  has  put  it  be- 
yond dispute,  that  the  word  juot^»jT?u(rotTg  used  in  the 
commission,  means  teach;  not  as  Peter  says  indi- 
rectly/, but  directly;  and  is  only  used  and  applied  to 
persons  capable  of  being  taught.  I  do  not  believe 
the  word  w^as  ever  used,  but  it  meant  or  implied 
teaching.  Since  I  began  to  write  this  pamphlet,  I 
have  taken  particular  notice  of  its  use  in  scripture; 
and  in  every  passage,  it  is  self  evident,  it  means 
teaching.  Christ's  disciples  were  they  that  were 
taught  by  him,  so  as  to  become  his  followers.  John's 
disciples  were  his  followers.  In  this  sense  it  has  been 
used  in  all  languages,  where  the  scriptures  have 
been  translated.  Men  must  be  in  great  difficulties 
before  they  would  use  such  poor  shifts  to  support 
their  sentiments.  I  have  been  surprised  to  see  pres- 
byterians  of  undoubted  piety,  learning  and  talents, 
labour  hard  to  support  a  cause,  which  cannot  be 
supported  by  divine  revelation,  nor  common  sense. 

It  may  be  that  my  publication  will  give  offence 
to  some  of  my  presbyterian  brethren,  who  share 
largely  in  my  esteem.  I  cannot  help  it;  for  my  ta- 
lent is  to  preach  or  write  pointedly.  No  man  can 
strike  fire  with  a  feather.  Great  plamness  of  speech 
should  be  used  on  this  subject,  if  possible,  to  open 
the  eyes  of  our  brethren.    If  some  severity  of  laii- 

z 


u 


172  CANDID  REASOJ^rS  EXAMINED. 

guage  has  been  used  against  Peter  Edwards,  he  may 
thank  himself  for  it;  for  he  has  not  written  either  be- 
coming a  christian  or  a  gentleman;  therefore  it  was 
almost  impossible  to  avoid  some  severity,  which 
should  not  have  been  used  against  a  man  of  piety 
and  decency;  neither  of  which  appears  in  his 
writings. 

I  know  there  are  men  of  learning  and  piety,  who 
are  not  of  my  sentiments.  Should  my  pamphlet  have 
the  good  effect  on  them,  to  induce  them  candidly  to 
lexamine  the  subject,  I  doubt  not  but  some  prose- 
lyte>  may  be  made  in  America,  as  well  as  lately  in 
Scotland,  where  men  begin  to  think  for  themselves. 
Truth  is  great,  and  will  finally  prevail.  Should  we 
ask  men  of  what  use  is  it  to  sprinkle  or  dip  chil- 
dren? Their  answers  seldom  agree.  Some  say  they 
are  made  members  of  the  church.  This  carries  some- 
thing pleasing  to  weak  minds;  but  the  worst  of  all 
is,  they  who  use  it  do  not  believe  it.  If  they  do,  why 
do  they  not  administer  the  Lord's  supper  to  them? 
Every  person,  acquainted  with  ecclesiastical  history, 
knows  that  when  children  began  at  first  to  be  bap- 
tized, the  supper  was  administered  to  them;  and  to 
support  their  practice,  they  brought  John  vi.  53. 
The  text  says,  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  ex- 
cept ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  di'ink  his 
blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you."  These  holy  fathers 
taught  that  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  were  both 
essential  to  salvation.  What  an  age  this  was!  If  the 
blind  lead  the  blind,  they  will  both  fall  into  the  ditch. 


■H-i 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  173 

Seeing  that  infant  baptism  and  infant  communion 
came  into  practice  about  the  same  time,  why  is  one 
dropped  and  the  other  continued?  Or  can  we  sup- 
pose that  neither  faith  nor  repentance  is  necessary 
for  one,  but  it  is  for  the  other?  The  Baptists  believe 
that  one  ordinance  of  Christ  is  as  holy  as  the  other, 
and  requires  the  same  qualifications.  In  this  they 
have  the  unanimous  voice  of  the  holy  scriptures,  rea- 
son, and  the  nature  of  things. 

I  shall  close  this  pamphlet  by  giving  my  objec- 
tions against  infant  rantism,  or  infant  baptism;  for 
one  is  no  better  than  the  other.  Both  are  without 
scripture,  and  attended  with  very  pernicious  conse- 
quences. I  have  many  objections  against  infants' 
church  membership,  but  shall  only  mention  a  few. 

1.  It  lays  a  foundation  for  what  is  foolishly  and 
falsely  called  national  churches,  which  is  a  mere  chi- 
mera, fabricated  by  avaricious,  proud,  t3Tannical 
clergymen,  to  aggrandize  themselves,  and  enable 
them  to  live  in  idleness,  pomp  and  vanity.  Some  of 
these  religious,  spiritual  merchants,  receive  twenty 
thousand  pounds  per  annum,  in  England,  v/hen  at 
the  same  time,  their  poor  slaves  have  scarcely  bread 
sufficient  to  support  nature.  All  this  is  accomplished 
by  psedorantism;  but  it  was  no  better  when  they 
used  psedobaptism,  which  was  the  practice  before  the 
reformation.  They  use  often  the  word  church,  and 
our  church,  to  amuse  the  people;  but  never  let  the 
people  know  the  meaning  of  the  word.  In  the  New 
Testament  it  means  such  as  are  called  to  be  saints. 


^.^ 


174  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

or  the  whole  number,  who  have  been,  are,  or  shall 
be  called,  and  shall  be  saved  through  the  atoning 
blood  of  the  great  Head  of  the  church.  In  a  few  in- 
stances,  it  is  used  for  a  voluntary  assembly,  without 
any  reference  to  religion.  Acts  xixi  40,  41. 

Ecclesiastical  establishments  have  been  one  of 
the  greatest  curses  attending  Christianity  from  the 
fourth  century  to  this  day.  It  is  well  known  what 
mischief  it  has  done  in  America,  and  some  of  the 
baleful  dregs  remain  in  New  England  to  this  day. 
Ecclesiastical  establishments  have  laid  a  foundation 
for  persecution  and  bloodshed,  wherever  they  have 
prevailed;  therefore  it  is  said,  "  In  her  was  found  the 
blood  of  prophets,  and  of  saints,  and  of  ail  that  were 
slain  upon  the  earth."  Rev.  xviii.  24.  Where  is  this 
blood  found?  I  answer  in  ecclesiastical  establish- 
ments, and  no  where  else.  This  is  the  main  support 
of  antichrist;  and  must  not  that  be  a  great  evil, 
which  supports  antichrist?  And  infant  membership 
is  that  evil  thing  that  supports  antichrist.  In  vain  are 
prayers  made  for  the  downfal  of  antichrist,  while  in- 
fant sprinkling  is  in  practice.  I  have  made  it  so  evi* 
dent  that  this  practice  supports  worldly  ecclesiastical 
establishments,  that  none  will  be  so  bold  as  to  deny 
it;  but  they  will  say,  we  have  none  in  America. 
Thank  God,  it  is  the  case,  that  we  have  none,  only 
the  dregs  in  New  England,  where  priestcraft  pre- 
vails to  the  great  injury  of  the  United  States,  which 
is  only  too  evident  in  the  present  day.  Nevertheless 
it  operates  in  a  different  manner,  so  as  to  promote 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  175 

the  craft.  It  is  certain,  that  the  minds  of  common 
people  are  impressed  with  the  notion,  that  somehow 
or  another  it  is  of  great  use,  hence  nothing  can  be 
more  offensive  than  to  say  any  tking  against  it.  This 
superstition  has  a  powerful  effect  on  the  mind  of 
common  people.  Men  reason  in  tVus  way:  God 
knows  I  have  not  much  religion  myselfj  but  I  must 
not  leave  my  children  to  the  uncovenanted  mtrcy  of 
God:  they  must  be  baptized.  What  follows  now? 
We  must  have  a  minister  to  administer  it.  What  fol- 
lows then?  The  minister  must  have  a  salarj^  I  am  a 
friend  to  supporting  a  gospel  preacher  in  a  comfort- 
able state;  but  I  am  not  a  friend  to  making  the  gos- 
pel a  trade  to  live  in  pomp  and  vanity.  The  minister 
must  have  four  hundred  or  five  hundred  dollars  ^ 
year;  but  the  people  give  it  freely,  if  they  are  able, 
because  this  good  man  puts  their  children  in  a  much 
better  state  than  they  were  left  in  by  the  first  Adam. 
This  is  an  error  which  cannot  be  supported  by  scrip- 
ture, and  is  attended  with  a  bad  consequence,  which 
brings  me  to  give  my  2d  reason  or  objection  against 
infant  membership:  which  is  this,  viz.  It  prevents 
the  salvation  of  the  subject  as  far  as  it  is  in  the  pow- 
er of  man.  Yes,  instead  of  promoting,  it  impedes 
the  salvation  of  the  subject.  If  the  child  should 
grow  up  to  years  of  understanding,  it  must  believe 
that  it  w^as  made  a  christian  in  infancy;  how  then 
can  the  person  be  convinced  of  his  lost  state?  He 
cannot,  till  the  Holy  Ghost  first  overtlirows  all  his 
notions  about  any  good  done  by  pasdorantism.  Grace 


# 


176  CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED. 

often  prevails  over  superstition;  but  when  it  pre- 
vails, there  is  often  a  gredt  noise  about  renouncing 
their  baptism,  as  if  it  vas  next  to  the  sin  against  the 
Holy  Ghost.  And  this  frequently  impedes  and  em- 
barrasses sincere  souls;  and  it  is  very  probable, 
some  are  even  prevented  giving  obedience  to  an  holy 
ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ.  How  often  have  I  been 
surprised  by  hearing  ministers  preach  to  their  hear- 
ers the  necessity  of  regeneration  and  a  work  of  grace, 
when  at  the  same  time,  they  had  some  years  before 
made  little  christians  of  them!  What  has  become 
of  all  the  good  done  by  baptism?  It  is  ail  gone. 
They  talk  now  like  a  baptist,  and  tell  them  plainly, 
they  must  be  born  again.  Is  it  possible  for  them  to 
reconcile  this  preposterous  jargon?  Why  do  they 
not  learn  to  preach  consistently? 

It  is  attended  with  profaneness  and  presumptuous 
addresses  to  the  God  of  heaven,  in  which  I  have 
heard  them  pray  to  God  to  ratify  in  heaven  what  they 
had  done  on  earth.  And  what  was  done  on  earth? 
Nothing  but  a  child  sprinkled  without  any  authority 
from  God.  If  they  have  any  authority,  why  do  they 
not  show  it,  and  not  amuse  mankind  with  analogy 
and  inference?  It  is  well  that  God  is  a  God  of  pa- 
tience, who  can  bear  with  the  infirmities  and  follies 
of  mankmd.  Nay,  I  have  heard  them  go  so  far,  as  to 
pray  to  God  to  sanctify  such  a  portion  of  the  water 
as  might  be  used  on  that  occasion.  I  have  always 
heard  of  papists  making  holy  water;  but  it  seems 
protestants  can  do  it  where  it  suits  them. 


-H 


CANDID  REASONS  EXAMINED.  177 

My  last  and  gi*eat  objection  is  that  this  practice 
has  a  direct  tendency  to  give  a  legal  cast  of  mmd 
to  all,  who  are  concerned  with  it.  It  has  a  most  un- 
happy influence  to  preach  a  crippled  gospel  attended 
with  conditions.  And  often  another  phrase  is  used, 
viz.  to  comply  with  the  terms  of  the  gospel,  and 
these  are  faith,  repentance,  and  sincere  obedience, 
changing  the  gospel  into  a  new  law.  We  expect  no- 
thing better  from  professed  Arminians;  but  to  hear 
this  from  others,  whose  confession  of  faith  is  the  re- 
verse, is  deplorable.  But  this  is  the  natural  fruit  of 
the  system.  On  this  subject,  the  baptists  have  no 
embarrasments:  they  consider  all  men  in  the  state  in 
which  they  were  left  by  the  first  Adam,  without 
God,  and  without  Christ,  till  they  are  renewed  by 
the  Holy  Ghost;  and  when  they  profess  their  faith, 
they  baptize  them;  but  not  with  any  view  to  save 
them,  nor  put  them  in  a  better  state  than  that  in 
which  the  first  Adam  left  them.  Grace  translates 
into  the  kingdom  of  Christ;  and  their  obedience 
flows  from  faith  that  worketh  by  love.  That  the  time 
may  come,  when  there  shall  be  only  one  faith,  one 
Lord,  and  one  baptism,  is  the  fervent  desire  and  sin- 
cere wish  of  an  aged  servant  of  the  church  of  Christ, 

THE  AUTHORe 


m- 


-'# 


REVIEW 

OF 

MR.  JOHN  P.  CAMPBELL'S 

SERMON, 

SAID  TO  HAVE  BEEN  PREACHED  AT  STONERMOtjTH 
MEETINGHOUSE,  OCTOBER  28,  1810, 

'  CONTAINING 

His  Opinion  on  the  Subjects  and  Mode  of 
Baptism,  ^c.  ^'c. 

In  a  letter  submitted  for  tliat  gentleman's  consideration, 

BY  DAVID  JONES, 

Pastor  of  the  Baptist  Church,  at  the  Great  Valle}', 
Chester  County,  Pennsylvania. 


The  leaders  of  the  people  cause  them  to  err,  and  they  that  are  led  af 
them  aj-e  destroyed.  Isatah. 


f'H/■.rsJSJ^r^J^^.y^«^f^>  9\»^rv 


PHILADELPHIA: 

Printed  for  the  Author  by  Dennis  Hearl  ■ 
i8!l. 


PREFACE. 


I  KNOW  neitlier  the  person  nor  character  of 
Mr.  Campbell.  A  gentleman  from  Kentucky 
put  his  sermon  into  tlie  hand  of  a  friend  of 
mine,  who  requested  me  to  make  some  stric- 
tures on  it.  and  fix  it  as  an  appendix  to  my 
pamphlet  against  Peter  Edwards.  For  the 
most  part,  Mr.  Campbell's  arguments  are 
therein  considered.  Sliould  the  gentleman 
think  proper  to  make  a  further  display  of  his 
polemical  knowledge,  I  wish  he  would  be 
concise  and  very  explicit;  for  I  am  now  very 
aged  and  wish  to  be  employed  on  more  im- 
portant subjects  than  controversies  about 
the  externals  of  religion.  Wishing  the  reader 
grace  and  wisdom  from  God  to  understand 
and  do  his  will,  I  subscribe  my  name, 

DAVID  JOKES. 


TO  Mr.  JOHN  P.  CAMPBELL. 


Sir, 

IN  your  preface,  you  exculpate  a  certain  wor- 
thy gentleman,  I  suppose  in  Kentucky,  from  giving 
any  assistance  in  composing  your  sermon;  but  you 
might  have  saved  yourself  from  the  remark;  for  no 
gentleman  w^ell  acquainted  with  antiquity,  would  be 
concerned  in  such  a  publication,  so  contrary  to  the 
sentiments  of  learned  men,  and  truth  itself.  I  am 
sorry,  sir,  you  wrote  on  a  subject,  with  which  you 
seem  so  little  acquainted.  I  suppose  you  have  been 
led  astray,  by  authors,  who  were  not  fully  informed 
on  the  subject.  Had  you  read  Dr.  John  Gill  on  the 
subject,  in  his  dissertation  concerning  the  baptism 
of  Jewish  proselytes,*  I  am  persuaded,  your  sermon 
would  never  have  appeared.  I  believe,  sir,  it  is  ge- 
nerally acknowledged,  that  no  man  in  Europe  was 
better  acquainted  vvith  rabbinical  writings,  and  all  the 
customs  of  the  Jews,  than  Dr.  Gill;  and  he  has  un- 
answerably proved,  that  no  such  custom  was  ever 
known  among  the  Jews,  before  John's  time,  nor  af- 
terwards, for  many  centuries.  The  earliest  writings 
of  the  Jews  is  the  Misnah,  which  was  written  about 


This  pamphlet  was  published  in  London,  anno  ir71. 


one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  destruction  of 
the  temple;  but  there  is  not  one  word  of  proselyte 
baptism  in  it.  The  Jews  have  two  Talmuds,  viz.  the 
Jerusalem  and  Babylonian,  in  which  there  is  mention 
made  of  immersions;  but  it  was  on  account  of  cere- 
monial uncleanness.  When  were  these  Talmuds  writ- 
ten? Some  Jews  say,  that  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  was 
written  near  one  hundred  years  after  the  Misnah.  It 
is  supposed  the  Babylonian  Talmud  was  finished 
about  A.  D.  500.  Any  thing  said  in  these  wi'itings 
is  of  too  late  a  date  to  prove  what  was  the  custom  in 
John's  time.  We  must  determine  this  point  by  what 
is  said  in  the  holy  scriptures,  that  neither  our  faith 
or  practice  should  stand  in  the  traditions  of  men.  '-'' 
Before  I  proceed,  it  is  proper  to  correct  a  small 
mistake  which  you  have  made,  in  a  note  at  the  bot- 
tom of  page  6.  You  take  for  granted  that  disciple 
and  proselyte  are  synonymous  terms.  This,  sir,  is 
not  true;  for  proselyte  means  a  person  who  em- 
braces the  Jewish  system;  but  it  is  never  applied  to 
one  who  professed  Christianity,  whether  Jew  or 
Greek.  Therefore,  to  render  |Woti>>jT«u(r«.T£  to  prose- 
lyte, is  an  unwarranted  translation,  which  none  can 
approve  of,  who  are  acquainted  with  the  Greek  lan- 
guage. The  phrase  is  not  often  used  in  the  New 
Testament.  We  read  of,  Acts  vi.  5.  Nicholas,  a  prose- 
lyte of  Antioch,  who  was  not  a  native  Jew,  but  a 
proselyte  to  that  religion,  previous  to  his  embracing 
Christianity.  For  after  that  all  were  called,  not  pro- 
selytes, but  disciples,  till  the  appellation  was  changed 


at  Antioch.  Your  motive  in  using  the  phrase  was, 
I  presume,  to  aid  a  dying  cause;  but  if  it  cannot  be 
supported  without  having  recourse  to  such  mea- 
sures, it  ought  to  die  a  natural  death.  If  you  wish 
to  see  the  Greek  verb,  //aS-jjTsuo-otTg  explained,  I 
would  refer  you  to  my  pamphlet  on  the  subject,  in 
my  refutation  of  Peter  Edwards's  Candid  Reasons, 
where  the  subject  is  fully  and  fairly  discussed.  I 
would  add  also,  that  in  that  pamphlet,  you  will  find 
your  arguments  answered,  except  your  singular  no- 
tions about  John  and  his  baptism.  To  this  subject 
I  must  call  your  attention  a  few  moments.  In  page 
7,  "  You  say  John  was  really  nothing  else  but  a 
Jewish  prophet."  Pray,  sir,  who  told  you  so?  I  am 
of  opinion  no  man  before  you,  ever  presumed  to 
say  so.  That  he  was  a  Jew  by  nation,  none  disputes; 
but  that  was  not  the  reason  why  he  baptized.  Be- 
sides, sir,  I  put  you  to  your  defiance  to  prove  that 
any  Jewish  prophet  ever  baptized  any  person.  There 
were  many  washings  and  immersions  used  among 
the  Jews  in  their  purifications;*  but  the  persons  were 
the  agents  themselves,  and  not  another.  The  case  is 
quite  different  with  John;  he  is  the  administrator  of 
this  ordinance;  and  other  persons  are  the  subjects. 
In  Matt.  iii.  5,  6.  we  are  informed,  that  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Jerusalem  and  the  region  round  about  Jor- 
dan, went  out  to  John,  and  were  baptized  of  him 
in  Jordan.  John  was  the  baptizer.  And  did  he  do  it 

*  It  is  not  my  design  to  include  the  consecration  of  priests. 


8 

of  his  own  accord?  The  scripture  says  otherwise, 
"  There  was  a  man  sent  from  God."  John  i.  6. 
What  was  he  sent  to  do?  He  answers  the  question 
himself.  "  He  was  sent  to  baptize  in  water."  See 
33d  verse.  I  render  the  phrase  sv  v^octi  in  water  as 
a  just  translation,  because  that  preposition  must 
mean  in,  when  it  is  used  to  point  out  a  place,  i?i 
-which  a  transaction  has  taken  place.  It  was  rendered 
with  to  favour  psedorantism. 

The  evangelist  is  explicit  on  the  subject,  and 
plainly  proves  that  the  legal  dispensation  ended, 
when  John  was  sent  to  preach  and  baptize.  In  what 
other  point  of  view  can  we  understand  the  Son  of 
God,  when  he  said,  "  the  law  and  the  prophets 
were  until  John:  since  that  time  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  preached,  and  every  man  presseth  into  it." 
Luke  xvi.  16.  See  also  Mark  i.  1.  By  the  kingdom 
of  God  in  this  place  is  meant  the  gospel  dispensa- 
tion, and  even  the  gospel  itself.  If  these  sentiments 
are  correct,  then  the  gospel  dispensation  began,  when 
John  was  sent  to  baptize;  and  then  the  legal  dispen- 
sation ended.  For  my  part,  I  can  see  no  other  mean- 
ing in  the  words  of  our  Lord,  and  master,  when  he 
said,  "  The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John." 
Be  so  good,  sir,  as  to  take  notice  of  that  phrase, 
"  until  John,"  then  a  crisis  came,  in  which  the  dispen- 
sation was  changed.  Observe  what  follows,  "  Since 
that  time  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached;"  by 
which  we  must  understand  the  gospel  dispensation; 
for  the  legal  dispensation  is  never  caUed  the  king- 


dom  of  God;  nor  have  I  met  with  any  author  who 
has  presumed  to  embrace  your  system. 

My  deal'  sir,  I  pity  you  in  my  very  heart;  for 
you  appear  to  have  drunk  too  freely  of  the  wine  of 
the  whore  of  Babylon,  which  is  of  such  an  intoxi- 
cating nature  as  to  derange  the  mind,  and  introduce 
strange  imaginations.  Rev.  xvii.  2.  I  hope,  sir, 
in  cool  reflections,  you  will  correct  your  mistakes, 
and  condemn  that  unhappy  sentence,  which  thought- 
lessly dropped  from  your  pen,  in  page  8,  where  you 
said,  when  speaking  of  John  baptizing,  "  It  appears 
to  have  been  nothmg  more,  than  every  Jewish  pro- 
phet was  expected  to  perform."  Pray,  sir,  who  ever 
expected  a  Jewish  prophet  to  baptize?  Surely  no 
Jew:  they  deny  the  sentiment — nor  any  christian;  for 
scripture  is  silent  on  the  subject.  Must  I  tell  you 
again  that  all  the  washings  among  the  Jews  were 
performed  by  themselves,*  and  not  by  another;  but 
John  was  the  administrator  of  this  institution  and 
not  the  subject.  Your  knowledge  of  antiquity  will 
fail  you  on  this  subject.  Your  authors  were  second- 
handed,  and  not  equal  to  the  task.  Every  text  which 
you  touch  fails  you,  and  staring  you  in  the  face, 
f-onvicts  you  of  attempting  to  wrest  the  scripture, 
to  support  an  antichristian  superstition,  which  must 
fall  sooner  or  later. 

Your  gloss  on  the  question  of  the  priests  and 
Levites  sent  to  John,  is  an  imagination  of  your  own, 

*  Except  the  consecration  of  priests. 

2b 


10 

und  foreign  from  the  truth.  "  And  they  asked  him, 
and  said  unto  him,  why  baptizest  thou  then,  if  thou 
be  not  that  Christ,  nor  Elias,  nor  that  prophet?" 
It  is  asserted  by  good  authority,  that  the  Jews  ex- 
pected that  when  the  Messiah  should  appear,  or  Ehas, 
or  that  prophet,  by  \vhich  is  meant  that  prophet 
mentioned,  Deut.  xviii.  18.  which  was  the  Messiah 
himself;  that  then  a  change  Avould  take  place,  and 
baptism  would  be  admmistered.  When  John  said  he 
was  neither  of  these  persons,  they  asked  him  why  he 
baptized.  If  John  had  ever  heard  of  proselyte  bap- 
tism, he  could  have  easily  said,  I  do  no  more  than 
other  prophets  do.  You  know  all  the  prophets  bap- 
tized; but  nt:ither  John,  nor  thiC  priests,  nor  Levites, 
had  ever  heard  of  this  tradition.  It  was  not  born  at 
that  time;  and  it  never  can  be  made  appear  that  it 
was. 

John  was  authorized  from  heaven  to  baptize: 
which  is  plain  from  Matt.  xxi.  25.  "  The  baptism 
of  John,  whence  was  it?  From  heaven,  or  of  men?" 
Had  the  chief  priests  and  elders  been  as  wise  as  Mr. 
Campbell,  they  could  easily,  and  with  safety,  have 
answered  this  question,  and  said  boldly  of  men;  but 
this  they  neither  did,  nor  dared  say,  for  fear  of  the 
resentment  of  the  people;  for  the  people  believed  he 
was  authorized  from  heaven  to  baptize.  Neither  the 
chief  priests  nor  elders  had  ever  heard  of  the  tradi- 
tion of  prosel3'te  baptism.  I'hey  were  silent  there- 
fore on  the  subject,  which  could  not  have  been  the 
case  if  proselyte  baptism  had  been  then  practised. 


11 

Should  the  people  of  Kentucky  wish  to  see  the  sub- 
ject unanswerably  handled,  they  had  better  reprint 
Dr.  John  Gill  on  the  subject.  No  man  will  have  the 
hardihood  to  say  that  there  is  any  liint  of  such  a  cus- 
tom in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  a  dangerous  thing 
to  endeavour  to  pervert  the  scriptures,  in  order  to 
tempt  men  to  embrace  human  traditions.  This  is 
one  of  the  greatest  evils  which  prevails  among  the 
psedorantists.  They  are  at  their  wits'  end  to  know 
what  to  do.  The  scriptures  will  not  support  their 
cause;  for  after  they  are  fairly  beat  out  of  all  their 
strong  holds,  yet  through  interest,  or  the  prejudice 
of  education,  they  will  not  give  up  their  mistakes. 
Your  bold  assertions,  respecting  the  baptism  of 
Christ,  are  such  as  demonstrate  your  irreverence  of 
the  Son  of  God.  Do  you  think,  sir,  there  is  another 
man  hi  the  United  Suites  w^ould  dare  to  say,  ''  Even 
the  baptism  of  Christ,  upon  which  the  baptists  build 
so  much,  was  nothing  more  than  a  formal  compliance 
with  an  important  regulation  of  the  Jewish  ritual.'* 
page  10.  This  is  your  own,  and  is  worthy  of  you; 
for  I  hope  no  man  will  adopt  such  an  unsuitable  sen- 
timent. Pray,  sir,  on  Avhat  passage  of  scripture  is 
this  sentiment  founded?  I  would  be  glad  to  know; 
for  I  have  been  near  fifty  years  in  the  ministry,  and 
have  carefully  examined  the  holy  scriptures  in  that 
time;  but  I  have  not  met  with  any  passage,  that  would 
countenance  such  a  shocking  assertion.  Nothing, 
sir,  but  your  ignorance  can  prevent  your  blushing 
on  this  occasion.  It  was  some  time  before  I  could 


12 

fix  on  any  passage  of  scripture  to  which  you  re- 
ferred. At  last,  with  the  help  of  your  popish  plirases, 
inauguration  and  install  I  concluded  you  referred 
to  the  consecration  of  Aaron  and  his  sons  to  the 
priesthood.  Exod.  xxix.  4.  viz.  "  And  Aaron  and 
his  sons  shalt  thou  bring  unto  the  door  of  the  taber- 
nacle of  the  congregation,  and  shall  wash  them  with 
water."  Can  you  suppose,  sir,  that  Christ  was  bap- 
tized in  order  to  comply  with  the  order  observed 
by  Aaron  and  his  son,  in  being  set  apart  to  the  priest- 
hood? Surely,  sir,  if  this  is  the  case,  that  true  say- 
ing is  applicable  to  you,  "  If  the  blind  lead  the  blind, 
both  will  fall  into  the  ditch."  You  will  please  to  ob- 
serve, sir,  this  rite  was  never  performed,  but  in  con- 
secrating the  priests  to  the  priesthood;  and  never 
repeated;  for  afterwards  they  only  washed  their  hands 
and  feet,  when  they  went  into  the  sanctuary.  Exod. 
XXX.  19.  How  could  Clirist  be  a  priest,  when  he 
was  a  descendent  of  Judah,  according  to  the  flesh? 
Did  you  wish  him  killed?  for  by  the  law  of  Moses 
that  was  to  take  place  in  case  of  any  other  tribe  as- 
suming the  priesthood. 

Your  logic  runs  thus:  Moses  washed  Aaron, 
when  he  consecrated  him  to  the  priesthood;  John 
baptized  Christ  without  any  authority  to  consecrate 
him  for  the  work  of  the  ministry.  The  passage  re- 
ferred to,  cannot  be  applied  to  any  but  to  the  priest- 
hood. And  to  appl}^  it  to  any  other,  is  not  to  explain 
scripture,  but  to  pervert  it.  I  grant  that  Christ  was 
and  is  a  priest  forever;  but  John  did  not  consecrate 


13 

him  one.  God  consecrated  him  and  made  him  a 
priest  forever  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec.  Psalms 
ex.  4.  Heb.  vii.  17.  Young  men  ought  to  be  not 
so  positive  as  you  have  been,  when  you  asserted, 
^^  To  fulfil  all  righteousness  can  refer  to  nothhig 
else,  than  obedience  to  the  ordinances  of  the  Mosaic 
law."  page  10.  But,  sir,  baptism  was  no  part  of  the 
Mosaic  law.  If  such  a  thing  was  then  existing,  it 
was  but  the  invention  of  men,  a  mere  human  tradi- 
tion. And  will  you,  dare  you,  call  a  compliance  witli 
the  traditions  of  men,  fuUfiling  all  righteousness?  Sir, 
I  am  ashamed  of  such  daring  and  crude  productions. 
1  am  heartily  willing  that  you  should  support  psedo- 
rantism,  if  you  can;  but  I  am  sorry  your  mistakes 
force  you  to  make  use  of  such  improper  means.  The 
Son  of  God  plainly  asserted,  by  implication,  that  the 
baptism  of  John  was  from  heaven;  but  you  endea- 
vour to  convict  him  of  a  mistake,  and  represent  him 
complying  with  a  ceremony,  which  w^as  only  appli- 
cable to  the  Aaronic  priesthood.  If  you  can  find  no 
better  method  than  this  to  support  your  cause,  your 
church  must  be  composed  of  old  wives  and  babies; 
for  men  of  sense  and  candor  Avill  forsake  you. 

It  is  my  opinion,  that  Christ's  disciples  baptized, 
and  John  also,  before  the  resurrection  of  Christ, 
without  using  the  name  of  the  trinity;  and  what  of 
that?  Was  there  any  difference  in  the  mode  of  the 
ordinance?  No,  by  no  means:  all  the  difference  was, 
the  name  of  the  trinity  was  superadded.  This  did 
not  alter  the  commission  in  the  least.  The  disciples 


14 

baptized  before  the  resurrection,  by  divine  authority: 
they  baptized  after  the  resurrection  by  the  same  au- 
thority, without  limitation.  "  Go  ye  therefore  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,"  &c.  I  care  not 
whether  the  verb  is  rendered  teach,  or  make  disci- 
ples, since  none  can  be  made  disciples  only  by  teach- 
ing. For  a  full  investigation  of  this  subject,  I  would 
refer  you  to  my  pamphlet.  Why  do  you  call  John's 
baptism  that  of  repentance?  Did  not  the  apostles  re- 
quire faith  and  repentance  after  the  resurrection,  as 
qualifications  for  baptism?  Acts  ii.  38.  One  was  to 
repent  and  believe  on  him  that  was  to  come;  the 
Other  to  repent  and  believe  on  him  that  was  come. 
Your  remarks  on  the  baptism  of  Christ,  to  say 
no  worse,  are  impertinent  and  very  unbecoming  any 
man  in  the  character  of  a  teacher.  Had  not  the  head 
of  the  church  a  right  to  leave  an  example  for  his 
disciples  in  after  ages?  Was  he  not  possessed  of 
every  qualification,  and  being  holy,  harmless,  and 
undefiled  with  human  depravity,  had  no  need  of  re- 
pentance? Because  repentance  was  required  of  every 
natural  descendent  of  Adam,  which  was  a  holy  qua- 
lification for  this  gospel  ordinance,  shall  not  he  be  bap- 
tized, who  is  rectitude  itself?  No  just  reason  can  be 
assigned  why  he  should  not.  The  dignity  of  his  per- 
son, and  the  spotless  purity  of  his  nature  qualified 
him  for  every  part  of  his  duty  in  his  mediatory  ca- 
pacity. He  came  down  from  heaven  to  do  his  will, 
who  sent  him;  and  in  doing  this  will,  he  fulfilled  all 
righteousness.  The  righteousness  was  the  doing  the 


15 

Avill  of  his  Father.  One  part  of  the  will  of  his  Father 
was  that  he  should  be  an  example  to  his  flock  as 
the  great  Shepherd  of  Israel.  All  you  have  said  will 
not  prevent  the  baptists  from  taking  the  baptism  of 
Chi'ist  as  an  example  worthy  of  their  imitation.  All 
your  authorities  about  Jewish  baptism  are  com- 
pletely refuted  by  Dr.  Gill  on  that  subject.  I  have 
the  pamphlet;  but  no  man  ever  presumed  to  answer 
it.  Every  author  you  have  mentioned,  and  many 
more,  are  considered,  and  the  mistakes  corrected; 
and  the  point  is  given  up  by  men  of  the  best  ac- 
quaintance with  the  Jewish  writings,  as  affording  no 
argument  that  can  be  depended  on.  Dr.  Gill  gives 
you  the  exact  time,  or  thereabouts,  in  which 
every  author  lived.  And  surely  Maimonides,  who 
lived  in  the  twelfth  century,  could  know  nothing  on 
the  subject,  only  what  he  collected  from  the  Talmuds 
and  other  Jewish  writings.  And  I  think  it  rather 
lost  time  to  spend  much  on  the  subject,  whereas  the 
holy  scriptures  are  the  only  rule  of  our  faith  and  obe- 
dience. Isaiah  said,  "  To  the  law  and  to  the  testi- 
mony, if  they  speak  not  according  to  this  word,  it  is 
because  there  is  no  light  in  them." 

There  is  a  capital  fault  in  all  discussions  of  pas- 
dorantists,  on  the  subject  of  baptism:  that  is,  they 
try  to  bewilder  the  honest  readers,  who  are  searching 
after  truth.  This  is  done  by  finding  fault  with  lexi- 
cographers, and  the  translation  of  the  holy  scrip- 
tures, if  possible  to  blind  the  reader  to  embrace  pee- 
dorantism.   ?>lucb  dependence  is  placed  on  infer- 


16 

ence;  but  thi.  is  a  very  uncertain  method  of  coming 
at  the  truth;  for  a  papist  draws  a  very  different  infer- 
ence from  the  same  text,  to  what  a  protestant  would. 
He  can  find  his  text  for  transubstantiation,  and  Peter 
being  Christ's  vicar;  but  you  would  draw  a  very  dif- 
ferent inference  from  the  same  passages.  And  as  for 
zeal  they  beat  all  others;  for  one  of  them  told  me, 
that  if  God  from  heaven  would  tell  him  that  he  was 
wrong,  he  would  not  believe  him. 

I  have  read  your  sermon.  I  find  it  the  old  story 
in  a  different  dress.  Your  criticism  on  the  Greek 
cannot  be  justified.  I  have  considered  every  text, 
and  endeavoured  to  do  justice  before  God;  and  I  am 
willing  to  be  examined  at  the  day  of  judgment  for 
the  rectitude  of  my  views.  One  thing  is  a  common 
fault  in  all  peedorantists:  they  dare  not  fix  on  any 
precise  meaning  of  the  word  /^ot^Tj^w  and  /3a7rT<(r/>to?. 
They  all  veil  themselves  under  different  terms:  such 
as  w^ash,  pour,  or  sprinkle.  Come  forward,  sir,  and 
fix  on  any  one  of  these  terms,  and  I  will  prove  that 
the  words  do  not  mean  that;  but  you  dare  not  do 
it.  You  are  not  suited  with  the  translation  of  £)t  and 
ug.  The  texts  you  produce  will  not  bear  you  out.  I 
will  now  try  your  skill  in  Greek.  Produce  a  passage 
where  the  Greek  preposition  can  possibly  mean  mtOf 
and  try  if  it  must  not  mean  into.  Pray,  sir,  is  there 
any  other  word  in  Greek  to  signify  i?itoF  Is  it  not 
used  when  we  mean  into  heaven  or  heii,  or  any 
other  place?  What  is  this  v  an  quibbling  for?  I 
know  your  design  is  to  try  to  support  your  antichris- 


17 

tian  superstition.  But,  sir,  it  will  not  do;  for  your 
cause  is  foiling,  and  it  must  foil,  when  men  thro-v\' 
aside  superstition,  received  by  tradition. 

You  say  you  can  never  be  a  baptist.*  I  believe 
while  your  present  enmity  continues,  you  cannot; 
but,  sir,  your  implacable  hatred  is  not  greater  against 
the  baptists,  than  Paul's  was  against  the  christians; 
and  yet  afterw^ards,  God  made  him  a  christian.  The 
same  God  can  make  you  a  baptist;  and  except  he 
makes  you  one,  I  do  not  wish  you  to  be  one.  The 
reason  you  assign  that  you  cannot  be  a  baptist,  is 
founded  in  ignorance  of  the  world.  You  say  "  I  can 
never  denounce  the  baptism  of  the  greatest  pait  of 
the  christian  world  as  false  and  antichristian."  This 
is  a  mistake;  for  the  greatest  part  use  immersion  even 
trine  immersion.  For  instance,  ail  Russia,  and  all 
the  Greek  communion  in  all  places.  Armenians, 
Mmgrelians,  Persians,  and  all  to  the  east,  who  never 
submitted  to  the  pope  of  Rome.  Ail  these  use  im- 
mersion;  so  that  by  far  the  greatest  part  use  immer- 
sion to  this  very  day;  but  where  the  pope's  power 
has  prevailed,  there,  after  the  first  part  of  the  eighth 
century,  rantism  has  prevailed.  For  your  further  sa- 
tisfaction, read  my  refutation  of  Peter  Edwards,  to 
which  this  is  an  appendix;  which  will  oblige  you  and 
all  others  to  take  new  gi'ound  on  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism. 

I  come  now,  sir,  to  notice  your  treatment  of  Mr, 
Merrii;  and  I  do  not  think  you  have  used  him  with 

•  Page  97. 

2  c 


18 

suitable  candor.  Mr.  Merril  appears  to  me  to  be  an 
honest  christian;  and  his  researches  on  the  subject 
arose  from  conscience,  and  not  any  acquaintance 
with  the  baptist  society.  I  am  not  sure  you  are 
correct  in  your  quotations;  but  I  will  take  for  grant- 
ed you  are;  for  nothing  is  meaner  tlian  to  mistake 
the  sentiments  of  an  author.  Your  view  seems  to  be 
to  correct  Mr.  Merril's  mistakes.  The  first  is  his 
quotation  from  Schrevilius,  who  says  ^aTrrKry^og  is 
/otio.  Very  well.  But  this  is  not  very  accurate;  for 
it  is  not  the  primary  sense  of  the  word;  for  Schre- 
vilius renders  the  primary  sense  of  (iocTrn^co,  to  be 
mergo,  which  all  Greek  scholars  know  means  to  im- 
merse; and  (oacTTTco  he  renders,  intmgo,  mergo  and  lavo 
as  the  third  meaning.  What  says  Parkhurst  on  the 
subject?  BaTTri^a  from  (^xtttco,  to  dip.  Sense  first:  to 
dip,  immerse  or  plunge  in  water;  and  in  his  second 
and  third  sense,  he  preserves  the  meaning  to  be  pri- 
marily immersion.  You  say,  does  not  /otio  denote 
washing  in  any  form  of  applying  the  water,  and  even 
by  sprinkling?  No,  sir,  it  does  not;  nor  can  you 
prove  that  lotio  or  iavo  ever  is  used  for  sprinkling. 
Both  Greek  and  Latin  have  their  distinct  words  for 
sprinkling.  The  Latin  uses  spargo,  conspergo  and 
aspergo,  for  sprinkling,  and  not  lavo.  The  paido- 
rantists  use  a  cant  on  this  subject,  which  cannot  be 
honestly  justified,  viz.  When  speaking  of  washing, 
they  always  use  the  phrase  of  applying  water  to  the 
subject,  and  not  the  subject  to  the  water.  This  is 


19 

their  cunning  to  baffle  the  honest  reader.  It  is  grant- 
ed you  may  wash  your  hands  by  pouring  water  on 
them;  but  not  by  sprinkling  them.  Our  wash-wo- 
men dip  clothes  into  water  in  washing  them;  and 
after  they  are  washed,  they  sprinkle  them;  tliey  ne- 
ver call  sprinkling  washing.  When  I  wash  my 
hands,  I  dip  them  in  the  water;  and  I  believe  Mr. 
Campbell  does  so  too. 

Your  next  remark  respects  John's  baptizing  di 
Jordan;  which  you  wish  to  evade,  by  saying,  "  But  if 
we  translate  the  passage  thus,  were  baptized  of  him 
at  Jordan,  what  becomes  of  immersion?"  Page  104. 
But,  sir,  you  cannot  justly  translate  it  so,  because 
the  Greek  preposition  gv,  when  it  means  a  place  in 
which  any  thing  is  transacted,  always  means  in.  You 
may  read  my  remarks  on  this  subject  in  refuting 
Peter  Edwards,  who  uses  the  same  quibble,  and 
your  bubble  will  be  dissolved  totall}-.  I  have  read 
over  the  evangelist  Matthew,  and  find  the  word  used 
in  it  near  two  hundred  times;  and  in  all  these  places 
it  means  in. 

Your  next  remark  is  in  the  same  page,  viz. 
"  John  was  baptizmg  in  Enon,  near  to  Salem,  be- 
cause there  was  much  water  there."  John  iii.  23. 
You  render  ttqkka  vSa^rot,  many  streams.  Here  you 
discover  your  deficiency  of  knowledge,  both  of  his- 
tory and  Greek;  for  Enon  was  a  large  fountain,  and 
had  only  one  stream.  The  Greeks  have  not  two 
words,  one  for  much  and  another  for  many.  Neithef 


20 

ife  ttoXaoi'  v^u}^  ever  used  by  them,  when  describing 
much  water.  They  always  use  the  plural.  Uohhoe, 
vi^oiTx,  is  in  the  Revelation,  i.  15.  xiv.  2.  xix.  6. 
Matt.  viii.  32.  Mark  ix.  22.  Now,  sir,  you  will 
find  that  your  knowledge  in  the  Greek  language  is 
not  quite  correct.  Crude  productions  always  expose 
their  author. 

Sir,  in  your  review  of  Mr.  Merril's  seven  ser- 
mons, page  107,  you  have  mentioned  several  lexico- 
graphers; but  for  what  purpose  I  know  not;  for  they 
guA'e  the  primary  sense  of  Qccttti^ui  in  favour  of  the 
baptists.  I  should  have  remained  totally  ignorant  of 
your  design  in  quoting  the  above  mentioned  authors, 
had  you  not  made  a  display  of  your  superlative 
knowledge  at  the  bottom  of  the  page,  which  de- 
mands a  few  remarks.  Your  ignorance  mduces  you 
to  say,  "  The  truth  is  that  most  lexicographers  and 
grammarians,  m  givbig  the  meaning  of  words,  have 
been  more  influenced  by  Jewish  tradition,  and  what 
they  saw  practised  in  the  church,  than  by  fact,  and 
the  truth  of  things.  They  have  too  often  confounded 
its  sacred  with  its  common  signification,  and  inter- 
preted its  meaning  in  the  New  Testament,  by  the 
sense  put  upon  it  by  Jewish  and  heathen  writers,  or 
by  that  of  the  christian  fathers,  who  began  too  early 
to  corrupt  the  simplicity  of  christian  baptism  by 
various  hurtful  additions!"  Now,  sir,  you  have  the 
honour  to  be  the  first  man,  who  ever  insinuated  that 
the  Jews  and  Greeks  did  not  understand  their  own 


21 

languages;  the  Greeks  did  not  know  that  /SaTT^rjuoc, 
meant  sprnikhng;  poor  fools,  they  thought  it  meant 
immersion;  and  so  did  the  silly  Jews;  and  the  chris- 
tian fathers  were  just  as  great  fools  as  they;  for  they 
used  dipping,  and  called  it  baptism.  By  this  jargon, 
it  is  acknowledged  by  the  great  man,  John  P.  Camp- 
bell, of  Kentucky,  that  the  Jews,  Greeks,  and  the 
christian  fathers,  understood  baptism  to  mean  im- 
mersion. The  truth  is,  it  would  require  more  igno- 
rance and  impudence,  than  Mr.  Campbell  is  posses- 
sed of  to  deny  this.  But,  sir,  you  have  your  salvo 
on  this  subject,  viz.  they  confounded  its  sacred  with 
its  common  signification.  The  common  significa- 
tion with  Jews  and  Greeks  was  immersion;  but  the 
sacred  meaning  was  rantism  or  sprinkling.  What, 
sir,  did  Christ  and  his  apostles  change  the  meaning 
of  words,  from  what  was  meant  in  the  nation?  No, 
sir,  you  have  perverted  and  changed  the  meaning, 
to  support  the  superstition  of  pasdorantism. 

Did  not  men  in  the  first,  second  and  third  cen- 
turies understand  their  own  language?  Mr.  Camp- 
bell would  persuade  men  they  did  not.  Or  did  not 
these  poor  blunderers  know  that  the  common  use  of 
words  were  changed  into  an  exact  contrary  meaning 
when  used  about  religion,  to  what  they  meant  in 
common  conversation?  No:  they  thought  religion 
was  never  designed  to  change  the  meaning  of  words 
in  a  nation.  They  knew  no  better  than  a  baptist  now. 
They  thought  that  jSctTrrw  and  |3i*7rT<f«  meant  to  im- 


22 

mersc  or  dip,  and  practised  accordingly,  just  as  the 
baptists  iiow  do.  is  it  not  extraordinary  that  a  man 
in  the  eighteenth  century  is  possessed  of  such  a  su- 
perlative knowledge,  as  to  inform  the  world  that 
words  have  two  meanings:  one  common;  the  other 
sacred.  And  what  is  as  extraordinary,  one  mean- 
ing is  exactly  contrary  to  the  other.  L^a-Trri^a  meant, 
by  the  best  linguists  in  the  nation,  to  dip;  but  in  a 
sacred  sense,  it  meant  to  sprinkle.  What  could  be 
your  motive,  sir,  to  publish  such  nonsense?  Could 
5-0U  think,  sir,  the  world  was  ripe  to  be  so  shame- 
fully imposed  or?  If  you  did,  sir,  you  are  very 
much  mistaken.  Your  attempt  to  deceive  must  be 
despised  by  gentlemen  of  learning,  even  of  your  own 
denomination. 

The  pasdorantists  have  a  cant  phrase,  often  used 
in  vour  sermon,  which  has  no  foundation  in  truth  or 
fact.  I  mean  the  word  Seal,  applied  for  the  purpose 
for  which  they  use  it.  They  say  circumcision  was 
the  seal  of  the  covenant,  &c.  By  what  authority,  sir, 
is  this  phrase  used?  None,  sir;  for  the  text  in  Ro- 
mans will  not  support  it.  Rom.  iv.  11.  Here  it  is 
said  of  Abraham,  "  He  received  the  sign  of  circum- 
cision, a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  l\\it  faith,  which 
he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised."  Pray,  sir,  ob- 
serye  here  it  is  not  called  the  seal  of  the  covenant, 
but  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith,  which  he 
had  before  circumcision.  Abrahdra  was  just  like  a 
baptist;  he  beheved  unto  righteousness,  and  then  was 


23 

circumcised.  But  circumcision  is  never  called  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  faith  to  any  of  his  posterity; 
for  surely,  sir,  a  Jewish  infant  had  no  more  righte- 
ousness of  faith  than  any  other  intant;  nor  was  it  re- 
quired. The  child  was  circumcised,  because  God 
commanded  this  national  distinction.  It  is  called  a 
token  of  the  covenant,  but  never  a  seal  to  any  but 
Abraham  himself. 

Your  calling  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper, 
sealing  ordinances,  is  only  priestcraft,  to  deceive 
your  hearers,  and  in  the  issue,  increase  your  own 
salaries.  Can  you  suppose  that  by  your  watery 
hocus  pocus,  you  put  a  child  in  a  better  state  than 
Adam  left  it  in?  If  so,  it  cannot  be  saved  by  grace; 
for  none  can  be  saved  by  grace,  but  such  as  are  lost. 
Or  do  you  think  that  by  this  superstition,  you  bind 
God  to  do,  what  he  otherwise  would  not  do?  We 
ought  never  to  make  an  ordinance  more  than  what 
we  are  authorized  by  scripture.  Baptism  is  the  an- 
swer of  a  good  conscience,  and  a  sign  of  our  fellow- 
ship with  Christ  m  his  death,  burial  and  resurrection. 

I  suppose,  sir,  your  conscience  told  you,  that 
you  had  in  your  sermon  used  the  baptists  not 
quite  like  a  gentleman;  therefore  you  attempt  to 
wheedle  them  in  the  end,  by  professing  you  love 
such  baptists  as  Bunyan  the  dreamer,  or  Carey  the 
missionary.  We  understand  you,  sir:  Bunyan  is 
dead,  and  can  do  you  no  harm;  and  Carey  is  so  far 
off,  that  you  cannot  receive  any  injury  from  hrni; 


24 

but  if  he  was  near,  your  love  would  soon  be  as  cold 
as  the  frigid  zone.  You  may  rest  composed  on  this 
subject^  for  the  baptists  expect  no  love  from  you, 
while  you  use  such  measures  to  support  a  part  and 
pillar  of  popery.  Wishing  you  a  better  heart  and 
head,  I  subscribe  myself  your  new  correspondent, 

DAVID  JONES. 
John  P.  Ca^ipbeli.. 


-ierS&tji,<iSI^V' iiiliu.;; 


I 


t*  \>-  -^^ 


